University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


SPEECH 

OF 


MR.fUPHAM,  OF  VEKMONT, 

ON 

THE    TEN    REGIMENT    BILL, 

AND 

THE  MEXICAN  ¥AR. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  FEBRUARY  15,   134&* 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  I  do  not  know,  sir,  that  I  shall  be  able,  in  the  humble  part  I  am  about  to  take 
in  this  debate,  to  impart  any  thing  of  interest  or  freshness  to  the  subject,  or  to  bring  any  new  contri 
bution  of  facts  to  bear  upon  the  questions  I  propose  to  discuss.  Almost  every  topic  connected  with, 
or  growing  out  of  the  existing  war  with  Mexico,  has  been  alluded  to  and  ably  commented  upon  by 
honorable  Senators,  who  have  preceded  me  on  the  floor.  But,  sir,  exhausted  as  the  subject  is,  I 
cannot  content  myself  with  a  silent  vote  on  the  question. 

Believing,  as  I  do,  that  under  existing  laws,  our  force  in  Mexico  can  be  increased  to  nearly  sixty- 
five  thousand  men,  and  that  the  more  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  for  the  purposes  now  avowed,, 
would  be  dishonorable  to  the  country,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  record  my  vote  against  this  bill.  But, 
I  shall  do  it,  sir,  with  no  view  to  embarrass  the  Executive  in  his  efforts  for  an  honorable  peace  ;  but 
to  prevent  the  forcible  dismemberment  of  a  weak,  distracted  sister  republic,  and  to  preserve  untar 
nished  the  fair  fame  of  the  country,  which  I  prize  infinitely  higher  than  any  territorial  acquisitions  we 
can  make,  or  any  glory  we  can  win,  by  the  success  of  our  arms.  The  honorable  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  in  his  eloquent  remarks  the  other  day,  in  support  of  this  bill,  ex 
pressed  a  desire  that  it  might  pass  without  opposition,  and  that  the  discussion,  which  he  was  aware 
would  arise  upon  the  war  policy  of  the  Administration,  and  which  he  had  no  desire  to  avoid,  might 
be  had  upon  some  other  measure,  hereafter  to  come  before  the  Senate.  This  bill,  he  thought,  was 
safe,  and  common  ground,  upon  which  we  could  all  meet  and  act  together.  Sir,  safe  as  the  honora 
ble  Senator  may  think  the  ground  to  be  on  which  he  stands,  1  cannot  occupy  it  with  him,  because, 
in  my  judgment,  it  is  dangerous  ground. 

This  bill  is  the  first  of  a  series  of  measures,  which,  ifcarried  out  to  the  full  extent  of  Executive  recom 
mendation,  must  bring  our  free  institutions  into  great  peril,  and,  I  fear,  in  the  end,  overthrow  them. 
The  recommended  increase  of  the  army,  from  sixty-five  thousand  to  nearly  ninety-five  thousand 
men,  to  be  engaged  in  the  conquest  of  foreign  States  and  provinces,  is  a  proposition  too  startling  for 
me  to  support.  Here,  sir,  I  must  pause,  and  here  I  must  stand  until  I  am  well  convinced  that  this 
measure  is  necessary  to  vindicate  the  rights  and  maintain  the  honor  of  the  country. 

The  cry  is  onward  ;  and  onward,  at  all  hazards,  the  Administration  seems  determined  to  go  until 
the  whole  Mexican  republic  falls  beneath  our  conquering  arms.  We  preach  the  doctrine  of  non 
interference  in  the  affairs  of  other  nations,  and  still  raise  armies  to  invade  and  conquer  a  neighbor 
ing  republic.  We  proclaim  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  and  the  right  of  every  people 
to  form  their  own  institutions,  and  at  the  same  time  we  send  our  conquering  armies  to  force  upon  a 
distant  and  reluctant  people,  forms  of  government  which  they  have  no  capacity  to  maintain,  and  to 
which  they  are  utterly  opposed.  We  condemn  the  dismemberment  of  Saxony,  the  annexation  of 
the  republic  of  Genoa  to  the  kingdom  of  Sardinia,  and  the  absorption  of  Venice  by  Austria,  and  still 
we  go  on  with  the  work  of  dismemberment  and  annexation  ourselves.  We  denounce  Russia,  Prus 
sia,  and  Austria,  for  the  dismemberment  of  Poland, .and  at  the  same  time  we  are  attempting  to  dis 
member  a  sister  republic  ;  and  if  she  refuses  to  submit  to  our  demands,  the  absorption  of  her  whole 
territory,  the  honorable  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  says,  may  be  the  penalty- 
she  will  be  compelled  to  pay  for  her  obstinacy. 

Mexico,  sir,  is  in  our  power — she  lies  quivering  and  bleeding  at  our  feet — we  can  destroy  her 
n:\tionality  and  blot  her  name  from  the  map  of  nations — but  such  an  act  of  injustice,  violence,  and. 
outWe  would  bring  down  upon  our  heads  the  just  indignation  of  all  Christendom,  and  brand  us  as1 
a  natW  of  robbers. 

Mr.  YOOTE.  I  am  quite  sure  that  the  Senator  has  no  desire  to  misrepresent  any  Senator  on  this 
side  of  thexjhamber.  Certainly  he  has  not  heard  either  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military- 
Affairs,  or  ahy  other  Senator  on  this  side,  give  expression  to  the  opinion  that  it  might  become  poll- 
Towers,  printefy  corner  of  D  and  7th  sts.  opposite  National  Intelligencer. 


tic  to  absorb  the  whole  of  Mexico.  The  absoption  of  Mexico  has  been  uniformly  spoken  of  by  us 
as  a  thing  to  be  deprecated,  but  from  which,  if  forced  upon  us,  we  were  to  educe  all  the  good  that 
was  possible. 

Mr.  UPHAM.  I  have  no  desire  to  misrepresent  any  Senator,  but  I  understood  the  honorable 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  in  alluding  to  this  subject,  to  say,  that  it  might  be 
necessary,  in  order  to  bring  the  war  to  an  honorable  close,  to  absorb  the  whole  of  Mexico.  However, 
I  have  his  remarks  before  me,  and  will  read  them.  In  the  debate  on  the  instructions  to  General 
Scott  to  occupy  the  republic  of  Mexico,  the  Senator  said : 

"  I  repeat  what  I  before  said,  that  the  longer  Mexico  continues  her  obstinate  rejection  of  reasonable 
indemnity,  and  the  greater  the  exertion  she  compels  us  to  make,  the  greater  will  be  our  demands  and  the 
heavier  her  losses.  What  we  would  have  accepted  last  year,  or  even  at  the  commencement  of  the  pres 
ent  campaign,  we  may  well  refuse  now ;  and  what  we  would  accept  now,  we  may  well  refuse  after  a 
few  months.  And  how  much  the  public  sentiment  of  this  country  may  demand  a  year  or  two  years 
hence,  if  the  war  continues  so  long,  1  do  not  pretend  to  predict.  We  may  have  to  make  the  great  ex 
periment  so  dreaded  by  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  and  the  Senator  frum  Kentucky,  and  annex  the 
domains  of  Mexico  to  our  own.  This  is  the  penalty  which  national  injustice  has  often  been  called  to  pay,, 
and  which  Mexico  may  be  preparing  for  herself." 

Mr.  CASS.  I  have  again  and  again  been^alled  upon  to  state  the  purport  of  the  remarks  to 
Ivhich  the  honorable  Senator  alludes,  and  I  do  hope  that  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  enter  into  any  expla 
nation  with  regard  to  them  hereafter.  I  am  confident  that  the  Senator  does  not  intentionally  mis 
take  my  views  ;  but  I  will  repeat,  that  all  along  I  have  deprecated  the  absorption  of  the  whole  of 
Mexico  ;  but,  as  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  has  correctly  said,  I  added,  that  if  forced  upon  us,  we 
must  make  the  most  of  it.  At  the  time  when  the  honorable  *Senator  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  CAL- 
HOUN)  introduced  his  resolutions,  I  stated  distinctly,  that  if  Mexico  protracteu  this  war,  the  public 
opinion  of  the  country  might  manifest  a  desire  for  the  annexation  of  the  whole  of  that  country. 
But  I  never  expressed  any  opinion  in  favor  of  such  a  result :  but,  on  the  contrary,  deprecated  it  as  a 
thing  to  be  feared  and  avoided. 

Mr.  UPHAM.  The  position,  then,  that  the  Senator  has  assumed  is,  that  such  might  be  the  con 
dition  of  things,  such  might  be  the  obstinacy  of  Mexico  in  refusing  to  yield  to  our  demands,  that  we 
might  be  compelled  to  prosecute  the  war  to  such  an  extremity  as  would  lead  to  the  destruction  of 
her  nationality,  and  the  absorption  of  her  whole  territory  by  the  United  States.  And,  sir,  notwith 
standing  this  result  is  deprecated,  and,  I  have  no  doubt,  sincerely,  still,  in  my  humble  judgment,  the 
tendency  of  the  measures  recommended  by  the  President,  if  carried  out  to  the  full  extent,  must 
inevitably  result  in  the  absorption  of  the  whole  country  ;  and  1  think  I  can  see  in  the  signs  of  the 
times  enough  to  alarm  the  country  in  reference  to  this  subject.  Such  a  policy  has  been  more  than 
dimly  shadowed  forth  in  the  resolutions  introduced  by  the  honorable  Senators  from  New  York  and 
Indiana.  The  former  suggested  to  the  country  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  strengthening  our 
commercial  relations  by  the  annexation  of  contiguous  territory.  The  latter  avowed  the  constitu 
tional  power  and  authority  of  our  Government  to  hold  and  govern  Mexico  as  a  dependant  province. 
Sir,  I  have  seen  it  avowed  in  the  proceedings  of  public  meetings,  in  the  speeches  of  our  military 
officers  who  have  won  glory  and  renown  upon  the  battle-fields  of  Mexico,  and  who  have  returned 
because  there  are  no  more  laurels  to  be  gained,  and  have  undertaken  to  indoctrinate  the  people  of  this 
nation  that  it  is  our  duty  or  destiny  to  carry  into  Mexico  our  free  institutions,  and  that  this  war 
ought  to  be  prosecuted  until  her  government  is  overthrown,  and  a  more  liberal  government  estab 
lished,  to  be  sustained  by  the  power  of  our  arms.  What]  Are  we,  then,  to  become  a  nation  of 
propagandists'?  Why,  sir, some  gentlemen  have  gone  so  far  as  to  denounce  every  man  who  raises 
his  voice  against  the  prosecution  of  a  war,  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  upon  Mexico  a  government  of 
which  she  does  not  approve,  as  traitors  to  their  country!  Such  is  the  sentiment  expressed  in  the 
•speech  of  Colonel  Morgan  which  I  have  before  me. 

"  As  Christians,"  says  he,  "  we  are  bound  to  protect  the  Mexicans  from  the  bad  intentions  of 
their  rulers."  "  And,"  he  adds,  "  all  who  will  advocate  the  withholding  of  supplies,  or  withdrawing 
our  armies,  disguise  their  sentiments  however  they  may,  under  whatever  artful  plea  they  choose, 
are  traitors  at  heart." 

Yes,  sir,  every  man,  every  citizen,  every  member  of  Congress  who  believes  it  to  be  his  duty  to 
raise  his  voice  against  the  further  prosecution  of  the  war,  for  the  purpose  now  avowed  by  the  Admin 
istration,  is  denounced  by  this  orator  as  a  "  traitor  at  heart,"  and  unworthy  of  the  confidence  of  the 
•people.  I  also  have  in  my  possession  a  speech  of  Captain  Stockton  advocating  the  same  principle, 
that  the  army  shall  not  be  withdrawn  until  the  overthrow  of  the  Mexican  Government,  and  the  es 
tablishment  of  a  government  there  upon  liberal  principles,  be  accomplished.  He  holds  the  following 
language: 

"  I  would  insist,  if  the  war  were  to  be  prolonged  for  fifty  years  and  cost  money  enough  to  demand  from 
each  of  you  half  of  all  that  you  possess,  I  would  insist  that  the  blessings  of  civil  and  religious  liberty 
should  be  guaranteed  to  Mexico." 

I  believe  that  the  sentiments  advanced  by  Colonel  Morgan  and  Captain  Stockton,  so  6r  from 
uniting  with  disapprobation  on  the  occasions  on  which  they  were  expressed,  elicited  the  most  une 
quivocal  marks  of  favor.  Those  gentlemen,  indeed,  seem  to  have  been  preparing  the  minds  of  the 
people  for  the  unqualified  admission  of  the  doctrine,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  extend 


itself  over  the  whole  American  continent.     At  the  sapper  given  to  Colonel  Morgan,  the  following 
toasts  were  received  with  the  greatest  enthusiasm  : 

"  THe  Destiny  of  the  United  States  Government — To  overshadow  the  whole  of  North  America  ;  there 
fore  we  may  as  well  begin  with  Mexico." 

"  The  American  Continent — An  Almighty  hand  has  rolled  the  barrier  of  the  seas  around  it,  to  mark  it 
as  one  republic. 

"  No  pent-up  Utica  contracts  our  powers, 
"  But  the  whole  boundless  continent  is  ours." 
"  The  Isthmus  of  Panama — The  next  resting-place  in  the  extension  of  freedom's  area."      " 

Now,  sir,  these  significant  indications  strongly  impress  upon  my  mind  the  conviction,  however 
much  the  result  may  be  deprecated,  that  great  efforts  are  making  to  convince  the  people,  that  it  is 
the  destiny  of  our  Government  to  extend  its  jurisdiction  over  the  entire  continent.  An  ocean-bound 
republic  is  spoken  of  with  apparent  seriousness.  Let  it  not  be  said  that  these  indications  are  to  be 
lightly  regarded.  They  proclaim,  in  language  not  to  be  mistaken,  the  interpretation  which  masses 
of  the  people  have  put  upon  the  policy  which  the  Government  seems  to  have  adopted.  And,  sir,  if 
this  perilous  career  of  conquest  on  which  we  have  entered,  is  not  to  be  arrested  till  our  arms  shall 
have  subjugated  the  whole  American  continent,  it  is  surely  time  that  the  country  understood  it.  It  is 
time  that  the  voice  of  warning  should  arouse  the  people  to  a  full  sense  of  the  impending  danger. 

Our  Government  was  not  constructed  with  a  view  to  wars  of  aggression  and  conquest.  The  armies 
contemplated  by  the  Constitution  are  armies  of  defence,  and  not  of  ag'gression — armies  to  defend 
our  own  territory,  not  to  invade  the  territories  of  other  nations.  The  unlimited  power  to  raise  and 
support  armies,  conferred  upon  Congress  by  the  Constitution,  was  looked  upon  with  great  jealousy  by 
the  people.  It  was  assailed  in  the  State  conventions,  and  elsewhere,  with  great  zeal  and  pertinacity, 
as  dangerous  to  liberty,  and  subversive  of  the  State  governments.  It  was  said,  that  the  power  bein* 
unlimited,  Congress  might  keep  large  armies  constantly  on  foot,  and  thus  exhaust  the  resources  of 
the  country;  and  that  we  might  be  compelled  to  live  under  a  government  of  military  furce.  To 
these  suggestions  it  was  replied,  that  the  power  was  necessary,  and  that  to  be  of  any  value,  it  rnugr. 
be  unlimited  ;  that  the  power  was  exclusively  confined  to  the  legislative  body,  to  the  representatives 
of  the  States,  and  to  the  people  of  the  States,  and  that  it  would  be  safe  in  their  hands;  that  the 
power  was  necessary,  because  we  were  surrounded  by  the  colonies  and  dependancics  of  powerful  for 
eign  governments,  whose  maritime  powers  might  furnish  them  with  the  means  of  annoyance,  and 
mischief,  and  invasion  ;  that  it  was  necessary  to  protect  our  frontiers  against  the  Indians,  and  to  man 
our  forts  and  garrisons  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  Here,  sir,  you  have  the  reasons  for  which 
the  power  "  to  raise  and  support  armies"  was  deemed  necessary.  The  conquest  of  foreign  States 
and  provinces  was  never  dreamt  of  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  But  the  wisdom  of  the 
past,  with  the  "  progressive  democracy"  of  the  present  day,  is  folly;  and,  indeed,  so  rapid  has  been 
the  advancement  beyond  that  old-fashioned  democracy,  which  prevailed  in  the  better  days  of  the  re 
public,  that  calls  have  been  actually  made  for  conventions  of  the  people  to  reconstruct  the  government. 
To  carry  out  these  splendid  schemes  of  national  aggrandizement,  it  has  been  found  necessary  to 
wage  war  against  the  freedom  of  speech  and  the  press  ;  a  war  infinitely  more  dangerous  to  the  liber 
ties  of  the  people  than  a  war  of  conquest.  The  message  of  December,  1846,  contains  the  declaration 
of  war  against  free  discussion,  and  I  beg  leave  to  read  it : 

"  The  war  1ms  been,  (says  the  President,)  represented  as  unjust  and  unnecessary,  and  one  of  aggres 
sion,  on  our  part,  upon  a  weak  nnd  injured  enemy.  Such  erroneous  views,  though  entertained  by  lew, 
have  been  widely  circulated  not  only  at  home,  but  have  been  spread  throughout  Mexico  and  ihe  whole 
world.  A  more  effectual  means  could  not  have  been  devised  to  encourage  the  enemy  and  protract  the 
war  lhanto  advocate  and  adhere  to  their  cause,  and  thus  give  them  aid  and  comfort." 

Here,  sir,  is  a  bold,  and  I  was  about  to  say,  shameless. attempt,  on  the  part  of  the  Executive,  t» 
stifle  all  inquiry  into  the  origin,  necessity,  justice,  and  purposes  of  this  war.  All  who  dare  call  in 
question  the  power  of  the  President  to  wage  war,  and  to  prosecute  it  for  the  purposes  of  conquest 
and  plunder,  are  denounced  as  traitors  to  their  country.  And  all  who  doubt  the  necessity  of  the 
war  and  think  it  could,  and  should,  have  been  avoided,  are  held  up  as  adhering  to,  and  advocating 
the  cause  of  the  enemy.  These  denunciations,  sir,  coming  from  that  high  source,  should  notfoe 
suffered  to  pass  unnoticed  and  uncondemned.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution,  regarding  free  dis 
cussion  as  the  great  safeguard  of  liberty,  declared,  in  the  first  article  of  amendments,  that  "Con 
gress  shall  make  no  law  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press."  This  right  of  free  dis 
cussion  belongs  to  the  people,  and  no  power  on  earth  should  be  permitted  to  abridge  or  impair  at, 
It  is  the  great  power  that  overturns  despotisms  and  builds  up  republics — it  shakes  tyrants  from  their 
thrones  and  confers  the  blessings  of  liberty  upon  millions  of  our  race— it  kindled  the  fire  of  oar 
own  revolution  and  made  us  a  free  and  independent  nation — and  it  is  the  best  security  we  can  haw 
\for  the  preservation  of  our  liberties.  It  was  Sheridan,  I  believe,  who,  in  speaking  in  the  House  <of 
bmnmonson  the  power  of  the  press  to  avert  the  encroachments  of  the  Ministry,  exclaimed  in  one 
of  hjs  loftiest  strains  of  eloquence : 

«>  them  a  corrupt  House  of  Lords  ;  give  them  a  venal  House  of  Commons  :  give  them  a  tyran 
nical  PrWe  ;  give  them  a  truckling  Court;  and  let  me  but  have  an  unfettered  press,  and  I  will  ti«£y 
them  to  encroach  a  hair's  breadth  upon  the  liberties  of  England." 

If  the  free>tom  of  the  press  were  so  essential  to  the  protection  of  British  liberty,  it  must  be  *e- 
rnrded  as  infinitely  more  important  to  the  security  of  a  Government  like  ours,  founded  upon  and  de- 


Baring  its  support  from  enlightened  public  opinion.  But,  to  pass  on  :  gentlemen  have  searched 
jfcc  precedents  for  this  war,  and  the  Senator  from  Illinois  imagines  that  he  has  discovered  one  in 
tiie  war  of  1812.  "  That  war,"  he  says,  ".was  declared  in  the  same  form  and  almost  in  the  same 
language  as  the  present."  Sir,  did  President  Madison  announce  to  the  country  that  war  existed 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  ?  Or  did  he  inform  Congress  that  long-existing  diffi 
culties  between  the  two  countries  remained  unsettled  ?  that  he  had  exhausted  all  his  power  in  mak 
ing  pacific  efforts ;  and  that  he  was  unable  to  bring  the  controversy  to  a  close  ;  and  that  it  was 
fer  Congress  to  decide  whether  or  not  an  appeal  to  arms  should  be  made  in  order  to  vindicate  our 
honor  and  sustain  our  rights  ?  Hear  his  language : 

u  We  behold,  in  fine,  on  tho  side  of  Great  Britain,  a  state  of  war  ngninst  the  Tniied  States  ;  and  on 
tltt  fcide  of  the  United  States,  n  t-tate  of  peace  towards  Great  Britain.  Whether  the  L  nited  States  shall 
continue  passive  under  these  progressive  usurpations  and  these  accumulating  wrongs  ;  or,  opposing  force 
to  force  in  defence  of  their  national  rights,  shall  commit  our  just  cause  into  ihe  hands  of  the  Almighty 
disposer  of  events,  avoiding  all  connexions  which  might  entangle  it  in  the  contest  or  visws  of  other 
Powers,  and  preserving  a  constant  readiness  to  concur  in  an  honorable  establishment  of  peace  and  friend 
ship,  is  a  solemn  question,  which  the  Constitution  wisely  confides  to  the  legislative  depanment  of  the 
Government.  In  recommending  it  to  their  early  deliberations,  I  ara  happy  in  the  assurance  that  the  de 
cision  will  be  worthy  the  enlightened  and  patriotic  councils  ol'a  virtuous,  a  free,  and  a  powerful  nation.1' 

Upon  this  message  Congress  announced  to  the  country,  by  its  legislative  act,  that  a  state  of  war 
eristed  between  the  two  Governments.  How  was  it  with  the  existing  war  ?  What  was  the  char 
acter  of  the  message  received  llth  May,  1846?  Did  it  set  forth  the  wrongs  perpetrated  by  Mexi 
co  ;  that  the  President  had  exerted  all  the  powers  conferred  on  him  by  the  Constitution  to  effect  a 
rific  adjustment  without  success  ;  and  that  it  was  a  question  for  Congress  to  decide  upon  the  fur- 
r  steps  to  be  taken  to  vindicate  the  rights  and  maintain  the  honor  of  the  country  ?  No,  sir ! 
The  first  announcement  to  the  country  of  the  existence  of  the  war  was  by  Executive  message.  How, 
air,  I  ask,  could  war  exist  between  a  foreign  Government  and  the  United  States  without  the  knowl 
edge  and  consent  of  the  war-making  power?  Had  the  President  any  authority  to  declare  war? 
Uo,  sir, that  power  is  vested,  exclusively,  in  Congress.  How  then  can  there  be  any  analogy  be 
tween  the  two  wars — that  of  1812  having  been  declared  according  to  the  form  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  whilst  the  present  war  was  waged  by  the  Executive  in  open  violation  of  the  Constitution.  But 
die  Senator  says  the  war  of  1812  met  with  "violent  opposition  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  and 
fie  has  given  us  specimens  of  the  fulminations  of  the  one,  and  the  rantings  of  the  other.  For  what 
purpose  were  these  extracts  read  ?  Were  they  designed  to  instruct  Senators  in  the  discharge  of 
their  functions,  or  were  they  intended  to  operate  on  public  opinion — to  excite  prejudices  in  the 
minds  of  the  people,  against  all  who  felt  it  to  be  their  duty  to  oppose  the  policy  recommended  by 
the  administration,  for  the  further  prosecution  of  this  war,  with  a  view  to  the  dismemberment  of  a 
sister  republic  1  If  this  war  cannot  be  sustained  upon  its  merits — if  it  be  necessary  to  sustain 
the  policy  of  its  further  prosecution  by  such  a  course  of  argument  as  that,  adopted  by  the  Senator 
from  Illinois,  I  think,  the  sooner  it  is  brought  to  a  close,  the  better  it  will  be  for  the  honor  of  all  con 
cerned.  Most  of  the  opposition  to  the  war  of  1812  grew  out  of  the  particular  policy  recommended 
for  its  prosecution.  An  increase  of  the  army  had  been  recommended  for  the  invasion  of  Canada, 
»nd  it  was  objected  that  the  war  ought  to  be  a  maratime  war  ;  that  we  should  build  up  a  navy,  man 
it,  and  prepare  ourselves  te  meet  the  enemy  upon  the  ocean,  where  the  injuries  had  been  received, 
which  we  had  armed  ourselves  to  redress.  Whoever  looks  at  the  debates  upon  appropriation  bills 
fcrthe  support  of  the  war  of  1812,  will  find  that  most  of  the  opposition  was  based  upon  the  ground 
that  the  naval  power  should  be  augmented  to  meet  the  enemy  on  the  ocean,  instead  of  increasing  the 
*rmy  for  the  invasion  of  Canada.  But  to  pass  to  another  point.  I  stated  in  the  outset  that,  under 
existing  laws,  our  force  in  Mexico  could  be  increased  to  nearly  65,000  men.  Now,  sir,  is  this  true  ? 
The  honorable  Senator  from  Mississippi,  the  other  day,  said,  that  he  did  not  so  understand  it.  To 
nettle  this  question  I  will  refer  to  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

He  says  the  twenty-five  regiments  of  the  regular  army,  as  distinguished  from  volunteer  force, 
•when  fiHed  to  the  limit  fixed  by  law,  would  be  28,814,  exclusive  of  officers;  but  the  actual  strength 
iife  says,  is  new  about  21,533  :  it  will,  therefore,  require  7,381  enlisted  men  to  complete  the  regular 
Military  establishment.  There  are  now  in  the  service,  engaged  for  the  war,  says  the  Secretary, 
twenty-three  regiments  of  volunteers,  seven  battalions,  and  thirty-three  companies  not  organized 
nrto  regiments  or  battalions  ;  but  the  rank  and  file  of  all  those,  the  Secretary  thinks,  do  not  exceed 
20,000  men  ;  and  that  to  give  those  serving  for  the  war  their  complete  organization,  will  require  an 
addition  of  about  12,500  men. 

The  force  in  Mexico  at  this  time,  including  the  regiments  from  Michigan,  and  the  two  battalions 
now  «n  the  way,  is  45,700.  In  addition  to  this  number,  the  Executive,  under  existing  laws,  has 
the  power  to  enlist  upwards  of  7,000  regulars,  and  to  call  into  the  field  12,500  volunteers,  to  serve 
daring  the  war — making  in  all  65,200.  If  the  5,000  seamen  and  marines,  also  engaged  in  (he 
war,  be  added,  we  then  have  a  numerical  force — naval  and  military — of  70,200  men.  If  we  add 
to  this  force  the  troops  proposed  by  this  bill,  10,000  regulars,  we  shall  have  an  army  in  Mexico  of 
upwards  of  80,000  ;  and  if  the  volunteer  bill  is  to  pass,  we  shall  have  a  force  of  upwards  of  100,000  ; 
and  that,  too,  after  the  country  has  been  virtually  conquered  by  less  than  one-fourth  of  that  number. 
Sir,  I  can  see  no  necessity  for  the  force  contemplated  by  this  bill.  When  the  regiments  of  the 
iiae,  and  the  volunteer  regiments,  are  filled  up,  we  shall  have  a  force  amply  sufficient  to  prosecute 


5 

the  war  '•  with  increased  energy  and  power,  in  the  vital  parts  of  the  enemy's  country" — and  thfete 
all  the  President  desires. 

The  Secretary  of  War  says : 

"  Our  further  operations  in  Mexico  must  he  conducted  in  one  of  the  three  following  modes.  FittST,tD 
take  and  hold  an  indemnity  line  ;  to  recede  from  all  places  and  positions  now  occupied  in  advance  of  it, 
and  cease  from  all  aggressive  operations  beyond  that  line.  SECOND,  to  overrun  the  whole  country,  anfc 
hold  all  the  principal  places  in  it  by  permanent  garrisons  ;  and,  THIRD,  to  retain  what  we  now  posses*, 
open  lines  of  communication  into  the  interior,  and  extend  our«operations  to  other  important  places,  asvvr 
means  and  the  prospect  of  advantages  shall  indicate,  keeping  a  disposable  force  always  ready,  withia> 
approachable  limits,  to  annoy  the  enemy,  to  seize  supplies,  enforce  contributions,  and  frustrate  his  efforts 
to  collect  means  and  assemble  troops  for  the  purpose  of  protracting  the  war  " 

The  Secretary,  after  discussing  the  comparative  merits  of  these  modes  of  conducting  the  wir, 
comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  third  mode  is  preferable,  and  adopts  it.  Now,  sir,  what  force  as 
necessary  to  carry  it  out  1  I  have  examined  this  question  with  some  care,  and  I  cannot  resist  the 
conclusion  that  the  force  now  authorized  by  law  is  sufficient.  This  conviction  has  been  forced  upon 
my  mind  by  the  success  which  has  hitherto  attended  our  arms,  and  by  the  despatch  of  GeneraJ 
Scott,  under  date  of  September  18th,  1847.  General  Taylor,  at  the  battle  of  Palo  Alto,  with  «. 
force  of  2,300,  defeated  a  Mexican  army  of  6,000.  At  Resaca  de  la  Palma,  with  a  force  of  only 
1,700,  he  defeated  6,500  Mexicans.  At  Monterey,  with  6,645  men,  he  stormed  and  took  the  strong 
fortresses  of  the  city,  and  compelled  the  surrender  of  a  Mexican  army  10,000  strong.  And  at  Buen& 
Vista,  with  4,759  regulars  and  volunteers,  he  defeated  Santa  Anna  at  the  head  of  20,000  well  arme2 
Mexicans.  General  Scott,  at  the  head  of  11,000  men,  compelled  the  surrender  of  Vera  Cruz  ami. 
the  strong  castle  by  which  it  was  defended.  At  Cerro  Gordo,  with  an  army  of  8,500,  he  met  and 
defeated  a  Mexican  army  of  12,500.  At  Contreras,  San  Antonio,  and  Churubusco,  with  8,497  meOt, 
he  defeated  a  Mexican  force  of  32,000.  And  with  7,190  men,  he  entered  and  took  the  city  of" 
Mexico,  defended  by  an  army  of  35,000  Mexicans.  Now,  sir,  it  seems  to  me  that,  after  these  brilliant 
victories,  with  a  force  25,000  less  than  we  can  now  put  into  the  field,  the  force  proposed  by  this 
bill  is  unnecessary.  But,  sir,  what  says  General  Scott,  in  his  despatch  of  the  18th  of  September, 
1847  ?  He  says,  that  with  the  force  en  route  and  4,000  more,  soon  to  follow,  he  can  hold  the  city 
of  Mexico  with  a  garrison  of  7,500  men,  against  any  attack  external,  or  combined  with  an  intenwfl 
insurrection,  and  have  an  ample  surplus  force  to  occupy  Puebla,  Perote,  Jalapa,  the  National  Bridge, 
the  Paso  de  Obijos,  Santa  Fe,  and  Vera  Cruz  ;  and,  as  a  modification  of  this  plan,  he  says  that,  witfe 
a  total  of  30,000  men,  the  principal  mining  districts  of  the  country  may  also  be  occupied,  and  a  se 
cure  transit  given  to  gold  and  silver  bullion  which,  paying  the  customary  duties,  would  cover  a  con 
siderable  part  of  the  expenses  of  occupation.  But  this  is  not  all,  sir.  General  Sc.ott  further  suggests 
that  to  augment  the  army  to  50,000,  would  enable  it  to  occupy  all  the  state  capitals  and  principal 
cities — to  drive  guerrillas  and  robbing  parties  from  the  great  highways  of  trade — to  seize  into  oar 
hands  all  the  revenues  of  the  country,  and  to  keep  the  Central  Government  in  constant  motion  anfl 
alarm  until  constrained  to  sue  for  peace.  Does  the  President  desire  to  accomplish  more  than  Gene 
ral  Scott  says  can  be  accomplished  by  a  force  of  50,000  ?  If  he  does,  what  is  it?  Is  it  to  annihi 
late  the  sovereignty  of  Mexico  and  make  her  a  dependant  province  of  the  United  States  1  Such.  a. 
purpose  has  been  denied  by  his  friends  on  this  floor.  What  then  can  be  desired  from  the  passage  & 
this  bill  but  the  patronage  it  will  confer  upon  the  President  ?  It  will  give  him  an  opportunity  to  ap 
point  five  or  six  hundred  officers,  to  be  engaged  in  recruiting  soldiers  for  the  next  Presidential  cam 
paign.  The  measure  is  not  wanted  for  an  increase  of  soldiers  in  Mexico,  but  for  an  increase  til" 
officers  at  home.  The  rank  and  file  of  the  army  can  be  increased  20,000  without  this  bill,  but 
there  can  be  no  increase  of  officers  unless  it  passes.  Fill  up  the  regular  and  volunteer  regiments 
now  in  the  field,  and,  after  that  is  done,  if  more  men  are  necessary  for  the  prosecution  of  the  wa?, 
ask  for  them,  and,  I  presume,  they  will  be  granted. 

But,  sir,  I  will  leave  this  branch  of  the  subject,  and  pass  on,  to  show  that  the  character  and  ob 
jects  of  the  war  have  changed  ;  and  that  its  further  prosecution,  for  the  purposes  now  avowed,  woulS 
be  dishonorable  to  tKe  country. 

When  Texas  was  annexed  to  the  United  States,  its  western  boundary  was  left  an  open  question,  to 
be  settled  by  negotiation,  between  the  Mexican  Government  and  ours.  The  President,  in  his  mes 
sage  of  May  llth,  1846,  informed  Congress  that  a  strong  desire  to  regulate  and  adjust  our  boundary 
and  other  causes  of  difference  with  Mexico,  on  fair  and  equitable  principles,  induced  him,  in  Sep 
tember,  1845,  to  seek  the  re-opening  of  diplomatic  regulations  between  the  two  countries  ;  that  the 
Mexican  Government,  in  October  following,  agreed  to  receive  a  minister  from  the  United  States  in 
vested  with  full  powers  to  settle  and  adjust  all  matters  in  difference  between  the  two  Governments^ 
that  an  envoy  from  the  United  States  repaired  to  Mexico,  with  full  powers  to  adjust  every  existing 
difference  ;  and  that  the  Mexican  Government  had  not  only  refused  to  receive  him,  or  listen  to  his 
propositions,  but,  after  a  long  continued  series  of  menaces,  had  invaded  our  territory,  and  shed  the 
blood  of  our  fellow-citizens  on  our  own  soil.  This  message  was  accompanied  by  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  pages  of  manuscript  documents.  The  usual  motion  to  print  the  documents  was  made,brtt 
it  was^voted  down  by  Senators  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber.  A  call  for  the  reading  was  then 
made,  but  that  also  was  refused,  and  the  bill  of  the  13th  May,  1846,  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  forty  yetar 
to  two  nays.  The  unanimity  with  which  this  bill  was  passed,  has  been  frequently  referred  to,  as  evi 
dence  to  sho\y  that  Congress  was  almust  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  Mexico  commenced  the 


6 

war.  The  President,  in  his  last  annual  message,  referred  to  it  for  that  purpose.  He  snys.in  sub 
stance,  that  Congress,  by  the  act  of  the  13th  May,  1846,  declared,  with  great  unanimity,  that "  by  the 
act  of  the  republic  of  Mexico,  a  state  of  war  exists  between  that  Government  and  the  United 
States,  there  being  but  two  negative  votes  in  the  Senate  and  fourteen  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives."  Now,  sir,  I  propose  to  present  to  the  Senate  and  the  country  all  the  facts  connected  with 
the  passage  of  that  bill.  The  bill  originated  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  On  the  27th  of 
January,  1846,  Mr.  Haralson,  from  the  committee  on  Military  Affairs,  reported  a  bill  to  authorize 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  undef  certain  circumstances  therein  mentioned,  to  accept  the 
services  of  volunteers,  and  for  other  purposes.  On  the  llth  of  May,  Mr.  Brinkerhoff  moved  to 
amend  the  bill  by  inserting  a  new  section  with  a  preamble,  in  the  words  following  :  "  whereas,  by 
the  act  of  the  republic  of  Mexico,  a  state  of  war  exists  between  that  Government  and  the  United 
States."  The  amendment  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  123  yeas  to  67  nays  ;  and,  on  the  same  day, 
the  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  174  to  14.  So  it  appears  that  67  members  of  the  House 
voted  against  the  preamble  to  the  bill. 

Well,  sir,  what  is  the  history  of  this  bill  in  the  Senate  1  On  the  12th  of  May,  it  came  up  for 
consideration,  and  Mr.  Huntington,  then  a  Senator  from  Connecticut,  since  deceased,  moved 
to  amend  it  by  striking  out  the  preamble :  and  the  journal  shows  that,  the  metion  failed  by  a  vote 
of  18  yeas  to  28  nays — all  the  Senators  on  this  side  of  the  chamber,  with  the  exception  of  three, 
voted  in  the  affirmative.  A  motion  was  then  made  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Kentucky, 
(Mr.  CIUTTENDEN,)  to  take  a  vote  upon  the  preamble  alone,  but  the  chair  ruled  that  it  could  not 
be  separated  from  the  bill,  and  the  motion  was  decided  out'of  order.  The  bill  was  then  pressed 
to  a  vote  and  passed — yeas  40,  nays  2.  Mr.  Berrien,  Mr.  Evans,  Mr.  Huntington,  and  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  declining  to  vote,  and  eleven  Senators  on  this  side  of  the  chamber  voting  yea  with  a  protest 
against  the  preamble  to  the  bill.  This,  sir,  is  a  concise  history  of  the  progress  of  the  bill  through 
tie  two  Houses  of  Congress. 

Now,  I  ask,  in  all  candor,  what  excuse  can  the  President  render  to  the  country  for  asserting  in 
^is  message,  that  both  branches  of  Congress,  with  great  unanimity,  declared  that  the  war  existed  by 
the  act  of  Mexico,  there  being  but  fourteen  negative  votes  in  the  House  of  Representatives  and 
two  in  the  Senate  ?  Sir.  the  journal  of  the  House  shows  67  negative  votes,  and  the  journal  of 
the  Senate  shows  18,  making  in  the  whole  85. 

Mr.  CLAYTON.     Will  the  Senator  allow  me  a  word  ? 
Mr.  UPHAM.    Certainly. 

Mr.  CLAYTON.  At  the  time  the  bill  passed  this  Senate,  those  of  us  who  voted  for  its  passage 
after  our  failure  in  the  effort  to  strike  out  the  preamble,  as  the  Senator  from  Vermont  has  stated, 
put  to  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  the  excessive  hardship  of  calling  upon  us  to  vole  for  a  bill, 
the  object  of  which  was  to  send  supplies  for  the  army,  with  a  preamble  containing  a  statement  of 
a  matter  of  fact  of  which  we  had  not  evidence  before  us.  We  repeatedly  demanded  the  separa 
tion  of  the  two  propositions,  but  the  separation  was  refused,  the  President  of  the  Senate  deciding 
that  we  had  no  right  to  call  for  a  division  of  the  question.  Then  we  insisted  upon  it  that  we 
should  have  the  right  to  vote  upon  the  bill  protesting  against  the  preamble.  And  the  Senator 
from  Missouri  now  in  my  eye  will  recollect  perfectly  that  he  said  on  that  occasion,  that  such 
would  be  our  right ;  and  such  was  the  understanding,  that  if  we  gave  our  votes  in  favor  of  the 
bill,  we  were  to  be  regarded  as  voting  for  the  supplies,  but  not  in  favor  of  the  preamble.  This  is 
t&e  simple  fact  of  the  case,  and  that  such  was  the  understanding  is  well  known.  A  Senator  now 
deceased,  (Mr.  Speight,)  distinctly,  and  over  and  over  again,  said  that  such  was  the  understanding 
with  regard  to  our  vote.  It  is  a  gross  misconception,  then,  to  suppose  'that  we  voted  for  the 
preamble,  or  ever  meant  to  vote  for  it.  I  hope  this  statement  will  be  sufficient  to  prevent  any 
injustice  being  done  us  upon  this  subject  in  all  future  time. 

Mr.  UPHAM.  I  thank  the  honorable  Senator  for  the  additional  information  he  has  given  upon 
the  subject — the  country  should  have  the  whole  truth  in  regard  to  the  matter.  Appeals  were  fre 
quently  made  to  Senators  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber,  to  strike  out  the  preamble  to  the  bill, 
as  no  evidence  of  its  truth  had  been  exhibited,  and  take  a  unanimous  vote  for  the  supplies  ;  but 
they  refused  to  do  it.  We  must  vote  for  the  bill  as  it  was,  they  said,  or  take  the  responsibility  of 
Toting  against  it.  General  Taylor  had  been  ordered  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  with  a 
small  force,  and  fears  were  entertained,  that  he  would  be  unable  to  sustain  himself,  without  rein 
forcements  ;  and  the  bill  was  passed  for  his  relief.  No  intimation  was  made  by  the  Executive,  that 
the  war  had  been  waged  with  a  view  to  the  permanent  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory  by  con 
quest.  The  message  declared  it  to  be  a  war  of  defence,  and  not  of  aggression.  "  Mexico,"  says 
the  message, "  has  passed  the  boundary  of  the  United  States,  has  invaded  our  territory,  and  shed 
American  blood  upon  the  American  soil."  To  enable  the  President  to  repel  this  invasion,  and  "  to 
grosecute  the  war  to  a  speedy  and  successful  termination,"  I  voted  for  the  bill  of  the  13th  May,  1846. 
Well,  sir,  what  said  the  President  in  regard  to  the  war,  in  his  message  of  December,  1846 1  Hear 
few  language : 

"  The  war  has  not  been  waged  with  a  view  to  conquest ;  but  having  been  commenced  by  Mexico,  it  has 
been  carried  into  the  enemy's  country,  and  will  be  vigorously  prosecuted  there,  with  a  view  to  obtain  an 
apaorable  peace." 

Here,  sir,  conquest,  "  with  a  view  to  permanent  occupancy  of  Mexican  territory,"  is  disavowed. 


"" 


1 


The  war  had  been  carried  into  Mexico,  to  cripple  her  power,  and  compel  her  to  make  an  honorable 
peace.     Again,  sir,  the  President,  in  his  message  of  August  4th,  184G,  says : 

"  Equally  anxious  to  terminate,  by  a  peace  honorable  to  both  parties,  as  I  was  originally  to  avoid  the  ex 
isting  war,  I  have  deemed  it  my  duty  agnin  to  expend  the  olive  branch  to  Mexico.  Should  the  Govern 
ment  of  that  republic  accept  the  offer,  in  the  same  friendly  spirit  by  which  it  was  dictated,  negotiations 
will  speedily  commence  for  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty." 

"  A  peace  honorable  to  both  parties"  was  the  object  desired.  "The  chief  difficulty  to  be  antici 
pated  in  the  negotiation,"  says  the  President — 

"  Is  the  adjustment  of  the  boundary  between  the  parties,  by  a  line  which  shall  be  at  once  satisfactory 
and  convenient  to  boih,  and  Mich  as  neither  wdl  hereafter,  be  inclined  to  disturb.  This  is  the  best  mode 
of  securing  perpetual  peace  and  good  neighborhood  between  the  two  republics.  Should  the  Mexican 
Government,  in  order  to  accomplish  these  objects,  be  willing  to  cede  any  portion  of  their  territory  to  the 
United  States,  wo  ought  to  pay  them  a  fair  equivalent ;  a  just  and  honorable  peace,  and  not  conquest,  be 
ing  our  purpose  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war." 

The  boundary  question  was  the  matter  in  dispute  between  the  two  countries — and  should  the 
Mexican  Government,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  line  convenient  for  both  parties,  be  willing 
to  cede  a  portion  of  her  territory  to  the  United  States,  we  ought  to  pay  a  fair  equivalent  for  it. 
No  cession  of  territory  was  to  be  required  without  the  free  consent  of  the  Mexican  Government. 
But  this  is  not  all,  sir ;  the  President  asked  for  an  appropriation  of  $3,000,000,  to  enable  him  to 
advance  a  portion  of  the  consideration  money,  for  any  cession  of  territory  the  Mexican  Government 
might  be  willing  to  make.  The  character  and  objects  of  the  war  having  been  thus  announced  to 
Congress  and  the  country,  I,  with  most  of  the  Senators  on  this  side  of  the  chamber,  at  the  last  session 
of  Congress,  voted  men  and  money  for  its  prosecution.  And,  sir,  to  show  that  our  votes  were  given 
with  no  view  to  the  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory  by  conquest,  I  refer  to  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Georgia,  (Mr.  BERRIEN,)  to  Senate  bill,  No.  105, "making  further 
appropriation  to  bring  the  existing  war  with  Mexico  to  a  speedy  and  honorable  conclusion,"  com 
monly  called  the  three  million  bill.  The  following  are  the  words  of  the  amendment : 

"  Provided  always,  and  it  is  hereby  declared  to  be  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  Congress,  in  making 
this  appropriation,  that  the  war  \vivh  Mexico  ought  not  to  be  prosecuted  by  this  Government,  with  any 
view  to  the  dismemberment  of  that  republic,  or  to  the  acquisition,  by  conquest,  of  any  portion  ol  her  ter 
ritory.  That  this  Government,  ever  desirous  t<->  maintain  and  preserve  peaceful  and  friendly  relations 
with  all  nations,  and  particularly  with  the  neighboring  republic  of  31exico,  will  always  be  ready  to  enter 
upon  negotiations  with  a  view  to  terminate  the  present  unhappy  conflict,  on  terms  which  shall  secure  the 
just  rights,  and  preserve  inviolate  the  national  honor  of  the  United  States  and  Mexico.  That  it  is  es 
pecially  desirable,  in  order  to  maintain  and  preserve  (hose  amicable  relations  which  oughtalways  to  exist 
between  neighboring  republics,  that  the  boundary  of  the  State  of  Texas  should  be  definitively  settled,  and 
that  provision  be  made  by  the  republic  of  Mexico  for  the  prompt  and  equitable  adjustment  of  the  just 
claims  of  our  citizens  on  that  republic." 

On  the  question, "  shall  this  amendment  be  adopted  1"  it  was  determined  in  the  negative,  by  a  vote 
of  yeas,  twenty-four — nays,  twenty-nine — every  Senator  on  this  side  of  the  chamber,  with  the  ex 
ception  of  Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Louisiana,  voting  in  the  affirmative.  Here,  sir,  is  the  recorded  opinion 
of  the  Whigs  of  the  Senate,  that  this  war  ought  not  to  be  prosecuted  with  a  view  to  acquisition,  by 
conquest,  of  any  portion  of  Mexican  territory. 

And  here,  too,  is  the  recorded  opinion  of  the  democracy  of  the  Senate,  in  direot  opposition  to  that 
expressed  by  the  whigs.  The  issue-is  fairly  joined — and  to  the  country  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  submit 
the  decision  of  the  question.  I  have  shown,  I  think,  sir,  by  evidence  which  Senators  on  the  other 
side  of  the  chamber  are  not  at  liberty  to  dispute,  that  up  to  the  close  of  the  last  session  of  Congress, 
the  acquisition,  by  conquest,  of  Mexican  territory,  was  disavowed  by  the  Executive.  What,  sir,  is 
the  character  of  the  war  now  ?  For  what  purpose  is  it  to  be  prosecuted  "  with  increased  energy  and 
power  in  the  more  vital  parts  of  the  enemy's  country  ?"  It  is,  sir,  to  compel  Mexico  to  cede  to  the 
United  States  nearly  one  half  of  her  republic — more  than  700,000  square  miles  of  her  territory,  and 
more  than  three  hundred  thousand  of  her  people.  This  cession  of  territory  is  demanded,  it  is  said, 
because  Mexico  has  protracted  the  war  by  obstinately  refusing  to  receive  the  olive  branch,  when 
offered  by  our  Govercment.  Mexico,  it  is  true,  agreed  to  receive  a  Commissioner,  to  adjust  the  ques 
tion  of  boundary  between  the  two  Governments,  but  the  President  senta  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  and 
she  rejected  him ;  expressing,  however,  at  the  same  time,  her  willingness  to  receive  him  in  the  character 
of  Commissioner.  But,  sir,  did  she  reject  the  olive-branch  when  offered  by  Commissioner  Trist  at 
the  gates  of  her  capital  ?  No,  sir,  she  received  it  crimsoned  as  it  was  with  the  blood  of  her  slaugh 
tered  women  and  children.  And  what  were  the  terms  of  peace  offered  by  our  Government  ?  They 
were  first,  the  Rio  Grande  for  our  western  boundary ;  second,  the  cession  to  the  United  States,  of 
New  Mexico  and  the  two  Califomias  ;  and  third,  a  right  of  way  across  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuan- 
tepec.  And,  in  consideration  of  these  demands,  if  conceded,  we  proposed,  first,  to  renounce  all  claims 
for  the  expenses  of  the  war ;  second,  to  assume  and  pay  the  claims  of  our  citizens  on  the  Mexican 
Government,  (supposed  to  be  about  $5,000,000,)  and  third,  to  pay  Mexico  such  additional  sum  in 
money  as  the  territory  ceded  might  be  worth  over  and  above  our  claims  upon  her  Gonernment.  The 
sum  offered  by  Mr.  Trist  is  stated  to  have  been  from  fifteen  to  twenty  millions  of  dollars — and  that, 
too,  after  our  demand  had  been  reduced  to  the  ultimatum  of  the  President.  Well,  sir,  what  was  the 


reply  of  the  Mexican  Government  to  our  demands  ?     It  was,  in  the  language  of  the  Mexican  Com 
missioners  to  Mr.  Trist,  that 

"  The  existing  war  was  undertaken  solely  on  account  of  the  territory  of  the  State  of  Texas  respect 
ing  which,  the  Nor;h  American  republic  presents  as  i'.s  title  the  act  of  the  said  State  by  which  it  was  an 
nexed  to  the  North  American  confederation,  after  having  proclaimed  it*  independence  of  Mexico.  The 
Mexican  republic  offering  (as  we  have  inlormed  your  excellency)  to  consent,  for  a  proper  indemnification, 
to  pretensions  of  the  Government  of  Washington  to  the  territory  of  Texas,  the  cau.se  of  the  w:ir  has  disap 
peared,  and  the  war  itself  ought  to  cease,  since  there  is  no  warrant  for  its  continuance.  To  the  other  terri 
tories  mentioned  in  the  fourth  article  of  your  excellency's  draught,  no  right  has  heretofore  been  as>ericd  by 
the  republic  of  North  America,  nor  do  we  believe  it  possible  lor  it.  to  assert  any,  consequently,  it  could 
not  acquire  them  except  by  the  right  of  conquest,  or  by  the  title  which  willresult  from  the  cession  or  sale 
which  Mexico  might  now  make.  But,  as  we  are  persuaded,  that  the  republic  of  Washington  will  not 
only  absolutely  repel,  but  will  hold  in  abhorrence  the  first  of  these  titles,  and  as,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
•would  be  a  new  thing,  and  contrary  to  every  idea  of  justice,  to  make  war  upon  a  people  lor  no  other 
reason  than  because  it  refused  to  sell  territory  which  its  neighbor  sought  to  buy,  we  expect  from  the  jus 
tice  of  the  government  and  people  of  Worth  America,  that  Uie  ample  modification  which  we  have  to  pro 
pose  to  the  cession  of  territory,  contemplated  in  the  fourth  article,  will  not  be  a  motive  to  persist  in  a  war 
which  the  worthy  General  of  the  North  American  troops  has  justly  styled  unnatural." 

In  regard  to  the  Rio  Grande  as  the  western  boundary  of  the  State  of  Texas,  anil  the  cession  of" 
Lower  California,  the  Commissioners  say  : 

"  That  Mexico  cannot  cede  the  belt  which  lies  between  the  left  bank  of  the  Bra^  (Rio  Grande)  and 
the  right  of  the  Nueces.  The  reason  entertained  for  this  is  not  alone  the  full  certainty  that  such  territory 
never  belonged  to  the  State  of  1  exas,  nor  is  it  founded  upon  the  great  value  in  the  abstract  wlr  el  i  is  placed 
upon  it  It  is  because  that  tract,  together  with  the  Bravo,  [Rio  Grande,]  forms  the  natural  frontier  of  Mex 
ico,  both  in  a  military  and  commercial  sense  ;  and  the  frontier  of  no  Stale  ought  to  be  sought,  ami  no 
State  should  consent  to  abandon  its  frontier.  But,  in  order  to  remove  all  causes  of  trouble  hereafter,  the 
Government  of  Mexico  engages  not  to  found  new  settlements  nor  establish  colonies  in  the  space  between 
the  two  rivers  ;  so  that  remaining  in  its  present  uninhabited  condition,  it  may  serve  as  an  equal  security 
to  both  republics.  That  Lower  California,  which  would  be  of  little  advantage  to  the  republic  of  North 
America,  oilers  great  embarrassments  to  Mexico  considering  the  position  of  that  peninsular,  opposite  our 
coast  of  Sonora,  from  which  it  is  separated  by  the  narrow  gulf  of  (.  ortes.  Your  Excellency  has  appre 
ciated  our  remarks  on  this  point,  and  we  have  been  gratified  to  see  that  you  have  yielded  to  them.  The 
preservation  of  Lower  California  would  be  enough  to  make  it  indispensable  to  keep  a  part  of  Upper  Cali 
fornia  ;  for,  otherwise,  that  peninsula  would  be  without  any  communication  by  land  with  the  rest  of  the 
republic,  which  is  ahvays  a  great  embarrassment,  especially  for  a  power  like  Mexico,  which  is  not  mari 
time." 

As  to  the  cession  of  New  Mexico  the  language  of  the  Mexican  Minister  is : 

"  We  cannot  yield  New  Mexico,  whose  inhabitants  have  manifested  their  will  to  make  a  part  of  the  Mexi 
can  family  with  nv)re  enthusiasm  than  any  other  oi'  the  republic.  These  deserving  Mexicans,  abandoned 
to  their  fate  by  some  administrations — without  protection,  so  many  times,  even  from  the  incursions  of  the 
savages — have  been  the  Mexicans  most  truly  patriotic;  because,  forgetting  their  domestic  complaints, 
they  have  only  agreed  that  they  are  and  wish  to  be  of  the  family;  exposing  and  sacrificing  themselves 
already  many  times  to  the  vengeance  of  their  invader,  which  has  been  excred  against  them  ;  and  discon 
certed  and  discovered  their  plans,  they  have  again  conspired.  And  to  these  Mexicans  can  a  government 
go  an  1  sell  them  like  cattle  ?  Never  !  And  if  perish  by  that  the  nationality  of  the  rest  of  the  republic,, 
we  1T.11  all  perish  together." 

And  as  to  the  right  of  way  across  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec,  the  Commissioners  say  : 
"That  forae  years  since  the  Government  of  the  Republic  granted  to  a  private  contractor  a  privilegei 
-with  reference  to  this  object,  which  was  soon  transferred,  with  the  sanction  of  the  Government,  to  Eng 
lish  subjects,  of  whose  rights  Mexico  cannot  dispose." 

These  are  the  reasons,  sir,  assigned  by  .the  Mexican  Government  for  rejecting  the  terms  of  peace 
offered  by  Mr.  Trist,  and,  in  the  present  pcsture  of  affairs,  without  a  word  of  comment,  I  submit 
them  to  the  Senate  and  the  country. 

But  Mexico  did  not  here  throw  away  the  olive  branch  and  seize  the  sword.  No,  sir,  she  offered 
her  project  of  a  treaty,  by  which  she  proposed,  first,  to  yield  Texas  proper  to  the  United  States  ;. 
second,  to  maintain  the  desert  country  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande  in  its  uninhabited 
state  as  a  national  frontier  ;  and  third,  to  cede  to  the  LTnited  States  more  than  one-half  of  I'pper 
California,  including  the  port  and  bay  of  San  Francisco.  The  territory  she  proposed  to  cede  com 
prises  about  200,000  square  rniles,  or  an  area  larger  than  all  New  England,  New  York,  New  Jer 
sey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  Maryland.  This  proposition  was  rejected  by  our  Commissioner, 
and  hostilities  renewed.  "The  bonndary  of  the  Rio  Grande,"  says  the  President, 

"  And  the  cession  to  the  United  States  of  New  Mexico  and  Upper  California,  constituted  an  ultimatum 
which  our  commissioner  was,  under  no  circumstances,  to  yield." 

Mr.  Trist,  therefore,  was  bound  to  reject  the  terms  of  peace  offered  by  Mexico. 

"The  terms  of  a  treaty  proposed  by  the  Mexican  commissioners,"  says  the  President,  "were  wholly 
inadmissible.  They  negotiated  as  if  Mexico  were  the  victorious  and  not  the  vanquished  party.  It  con 
tained  no  provision  for  the  payment  by  Mexico  of  the  just  claims  of  our  citizens." 

Is  this,  sir,  a  just,  true,  and  impartial  representation  of  the  terms  of  peace  proposed  by  Mexico? 
Did  she  take  the  stand  of  a  victorious  party,  and  claim  concessions  from  us  ?  Did  she  refuse  to 
make  provisions  for  the  payment  of  the  just  claims  of  our.  citizens  1  Wha.t  consideration,  sir,  was 


9 

*»he  to  receive  for  the  two  hundred  thousand  square  miles  of  territory  she  proposed  to  cede  to  th* 
United  States,  but  a  discharge  from  those  claims'?  I  am  not  prepared  to  estimate  the  value  of  the 
territory  Mexico  proposed  to  cede  to  the  United  States.  It  may  have  been  insufficient  to  pay  the  just 
claims  of  our  citizens  upon  that  Government ;  but  the  port  and  bay  of  San  Francisco  alone,  I  know> 
have  been  considered  of  great  value  to  the  United  States. 

It  does,  however,  appear  from  the  message,  that  the  cession  of  territory  demanded  by  our  Com 
missioner,  was  of  greater  value  than  a  fair  equivalent  for  our  just  demands  ;  for  he  "  was  author 
ized  to  stipulate  for  the  payment  of  such  additional  pecuniary  consideration  as  was  deemed  rea- 
ronable." 

Now,  sir,  I  propound  to  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber  this  question  :  Was  it  just 
and  honorable  to  demand  of  Mexico,  with  a  victorious  army  thundering  at  the  gates  of  her  capital, 
a  cession  of  territory  of  greater  value  than  a  fair  equivalent  for  our  just  demands  ?  This  is  an 
important  question,  and.,  I  hope,  it  will  be  answered  before  the  debate  closes. 

But,  sir,  the  war  is  now  raging,  and  to  show  the  purpose  for  which  its  more  vigorous  prosecu 
tion  is  recommended  and  desired>  I  refer  to  the  last  annual  message  of  the  President.  He  says 
that — 

"  Since  the  liberal  proposition  of  the  United  States  was  authorized  tob'e  made  ih  April  last,  large  ex 
penditures  have  been  incurred,  and  the  precious  blood  of  many  of  our  patriotic  fellow-citizens  has  been 
shed  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  This  consideration,  and  the  obstinate  perseverance  of  Mexico  in  pro 
tracting  the  war,  mu.*t  influence  the  terms  of  peace  which  it  may  be  deemed  proper  hereafter  to  accept. 

"  Our  arms  having  been  every  where  victorious,  having  subjected  to  our  military  occupation  a  large 
portion  of  the  enemy's  country,  including  his  capital,  and  negotiations  for  peace  having  failed,  the  impor 
tant  questions  arise,  in  what  manner  the  war  ought  to  be  prosecuted  1  and  what  should  be  our  future  poli 
cy  ?  I  cannot  doubt  that  we  should  secure  and  render  available  the  conquests  which  we  have  already 
made  ;  and  that,  with  this  view,  we  should  hold  and  occupy,  by  our  naval  and  military  forces,  all  the  ports, 
towns,  cities,  arid  provinces  now  in  our  occupation,  or  which  may  hereafier  fall  into  our  possession  ;  that 
we  should  press  forward  our  military  operations,  and  levy  such  military  contributions  on  the  enemy,  as 
may,  as  far  as  practicable,  defray  the  future  expense  of  the  war. 

"  Had  the  Government  of  Mexico  acceded  to  the  equitable  and  liberal  terms  preposed,  th  it  mode  of  ad 
justment  would  have  been  preferred.  Mexico  having  declined  to  do  this,  and  failed  to  offer  any  other 
terms  which  could  be  accepted  by  the  United  States,  the  national  honor,  no  less  than  the  public  interr 
ests,  requires  that  tho  war  should  be  prosecuted  with  increased  energy  and  power,  until  a  just  and  satisfac 
tory  peace  can  be  obtained.  In  the  meantime,  as  Mexico  refubes  all  indemnity,  we  should  adopt  mea 
sures  to  indemnify  ourselves,  by  appropriating  permanently,  a  portion  of  her  territory.  Early  after  the 
commencement  of  the  war,  JNew  Mexico  and  the  Californias  were  taken  possession  of  by  our  forces; 
Our  military  and  naval  commanders  were  ordered  to  conquer  and  hold  them,  subject  to  be  disposed  of  by 
a  treaty  of  peace. 

"  These  provinces  are  now  in  our  undisputed  occupation,  and  have  been  so  for  many  months  ;  all  re 
sistance  on  the  part  of  Mexico  having  ceased  within  their  limits.  I  am  satisfied  tnat  they  should  never 
be  surrendered  to  Mexico.  Should  Congress  concur  with  me  in  this  opinion,  and  that  they  should  be  re 
tained  by  the  I'nited  States  as  indemnity,!  can  perceive  no  good  reason  why  the  civil  jurisdiction  and 
laws  of  th3  United  States  should  not  at  once  be  exlended  over  them.  To  wait  for  a  treaty  of  peace, 
such  as  we  are  willing  to  make,  by  which  our  relations  towaids  them  would  not  be  changed,  cannot  be 
good  policy  ;  whilst  our  own  interest,  and  that  of  the  people  inhabiting  them,  require  that  a  stable,  res 
ponsible,  and  free  government  under  our  authority  should,  as  soon  as  possible,  be  established  over  tfiem. 
Should  Congress,  therefore,  determine  to  hold  these  provinces  permanently,  and  that  they  shall  hereafter 
be  considered  as  Constituent  parts  of  our  country,  the  early  establishment  of  territorial  governments  over 
them  will  be  important  for  the  more  perfect  protection  of  persons  and  property;  and  1  recommend  that 
such  territorial  governments  be  established." 

"  Had  the  Mexican  Government  acceded  to  the  equitable  and  liberal  terms  proposed  last  April," 
a  cession  of  about  one  half  of  her  republic  would  have  satisfied  the  President ;  but  her  rejecliori 
of  our  terms>and  the  large  expenditures  of  blood  and  treasure,  occasioned  by  the  renewal  of  hos 
tilities,  "  must,"  he  says,  "  influence  the  terms  of  peace  which  it  may  be  deemed  proper  hereafter 
to  accept/'  How  much  he  intends  hereafter  to  claim,  he  has  not  condescended  to  inform  us. 
New  Mexico  and  the  Californias,  he  says,  are  in  our  possession,  and  ought  never  to  be  surrendered 
to  Mexico. 

The  other  Mexican  provinces;  in  our  possession,  are  to  be  held  as  a  means  of  coercing  Mexico  to 
accede  to  our  terms  of  peace.  Well,  sir,  what  are  our  terms  of  peace  1  What  does  the  Presi 
dent  desire  to  coerce  Mexico  to  do  ?  Why,  sir,  to  sell  us  fifteen  or  twenty  millions  of  dollars  worth 
of  her  territory.  This  is  the  plain  English  of  the  whole  matter,  and,  in  my  judgment,  it  is  a  pro 
ceeding  dishonorable  to  tke  country,  and  I  will  wash  my  hands  of  all  participation  in  it.  If  we 
must  take  Mexican  territory  to  pay  the  claims  of  our  citizens  upon  that  Government,  let  us  be 
contented  with  a  cession  sufficient  for  that  purpose.  Mexico  is  under  no  obligation  to  sell  us  her 
territory,  and  the  war  ought  not  to  be  continued  for  a  single  hour  to  compel  her  to  do  it.  But 
this  measure  has  been  recommended  by  the  administration,  and  the  honorable  Senator  from  Ar 
kansas,  (Mr.  SEVIER,)  says,  that  is  sufficient  for  him.  It  is  not 'sufficient  for  me.  I  must  act  on 
my  own  responsibility,  and  not  on  the  responsibility  of  the  Executive.  I  must  be  satisfied  that 
the  measure  is  necessary  to  vindicate  the  rights  and  sustain  the  honor  of  the  country,  before  I  can 
support  it. 

Again,  sir,  it  has  been  more  than  intimated  by  honorable  Senators  on  the  other  side  of  the  cham- 
fcer,  who  have  participated  in  this  debate,  that  the  only  test  of  true  patriotism  and  real  love  of 


10 

errantry,  is  a  cordial  support  of  all  the  measures  recommended  by  the  administration,  for  the  farther 
prosecution  of  this  war  ;  and  that  opposition  to  them  is  opposition  to  the  country,  and  taking  sides 
with  the  enemy.  Sir,  I  claim  to  be  as  patriotic,  and  as  ready  to  stand  by  the  country,  in  peace  and 
in  war,  as  Senators  over  the  way.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  stand  by  the  country,  and  quite  a  differ 
ent  thing  to  stand  by  the  administration.  In  standing  by  the  country,  I  find  myself  compelled  to 
oppose  the  measures  recommended  by  the  administration,  because,  in  my  judgment,  if  carried  out, 
they  would  prove  ruinous  to  the  country.  But,  Mr.  President,  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois, 
(Mr.  DOUGLASS,)  said  he  was  surprised  to  hear  this  war  and  the  recommendations  of  the  President 
for  its  vigorous  prosecution  denounced,  "especially  from  those  Senators  who  voted  for  all  the  war 
measures  of  the  last  session  and  the  preceding  one."  The  war  measures,  sir,  for  which  we  have 
heretofore  voted,  were  recommended,  the  President  informed  us,  with  no  view  to  the  acquisition  of 
Mexican  territory,  by  conquest — a  just  and  honorable  peace,  and  not  the  forcible  dismemberment  of 
the  Mexican  republic,  was  the  purpose  avowed  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war;  But,  sir,  the  war, 
since  the  last  session  of  Congress,  has  assumed  a  new  character.  Its  more  vigorous  prosecution  is 
now  recommended  for  a  new  object,  and  one  that  we  have  never  approved,  but  uniformly  con 
demned.  We  have  never  voted  men  nor  money  for  snch  a  war  as  the  President  now  avows  this 
to  be.  The  war  for  which  we  voted  supplies  was  a  war  "  waged  with  no  view  to  conquest."  The 
honorable  Senator,  therefore,  ought  to  feel  no  surprise  at  the  stand  we  take  against  this  bill. 

But,  sir,  I  will  leave  this  subject  and  pass  to  a  brief  review  of  the  measures  which  occasioned  the 
war,  viz:  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  the  order  of  the  13th  of  January,  3846,  for  the  march  of 
the  army  from  Corpus  Christi  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande.  For  the.se  two  measures  the 
democratic  party  and  the  President  are  responsible.  And  I  therefore  charge  upon  them  this  war, 
and  all  the  blood  and  treasure  it  has  cost  the  country.  The  annexation  of  Texas  was  a  party  mea 
sure.  It  was  a  scheme,  devised  by  the  democracy  of  the  south,  to  prevent  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  Texas  ;  and,  when  first  announced,  it  met  with  no  favor  from  the  democracy  of  the  north.  It 
was  denounced  with  great  violence,  and  in  language  somewhat  offensive,  by  the  party  press,  and  in 
the  conventions  of  the  people.  The  Globe,  the  leading  democratic  press  in  this  city,  joined  in  the 
opposition,  and  it  was  continued  up  to  the  meeting  of  the  democratic  convention  in  Baltimore  in 
May,  1844.  Now,  sir,  as  the  honorable  Senator  frem  Illinois  thought  it  his  duty  to  convey  through 
the  Senate  to  the  country  the  denunciations  of  a  portion  of  the  clergy  and  the  press  against  the 
war  of  1812,  I  will  follow  his  example,  and  present  to  the  Senate  the  denunciations  of  the  north 
ern  democracy  against  the  annexation  of  Texas,  when  the  scheme  was  first  announced  to  the  coun 
try.  I  shall  do  this,  sir,  with  no  view  to  cast  reproach  upon  the  people  of  Texas,  but  to  show  that, 
with  the  northern  democracy,  obligations  to  country  are  sometimes  overcome  by  obligations  to 
party. 

On  the  20th  of  November,  1843,  the  Dover  Gazette,  N.  H.,  a  democratic  paper,  in  an  article 
against  annexation,  spoke  of  Texas  in  the  following  language  : 

"  Texas  can  hardly  be  in  a  worse  state  than  it  is  now — the  most  wicked,  vile,  God-abandoned  place  of 
which  we  have  any  knowledge — its  history  would  make  the  savage  blush  with  shame. 
Yet  t'lere  are  some  who  desire  to  effect  an  union  between  Texas  and  this  country,  as  if  we  had  not  enough 
guilt  and  crime  already  upon  our  shoulders.  We  wish  rather  that  we  could  fix  an  impassable  gulf  between 
us  and  its  borders,  that  its  breath  of  pestilence  might  never  reach  our  shores.  Heaven  save  us  from  a  union 
with  Texas." 

The  New  Hampshire  Nashua  Gazette  (democratic  paper)  of  November  9,  1843,  in  speaking  of 
the  annexation  of  Texas  eaid : 

"The  object- and  design  throughout  all  is  as  black  as  ink — bitter  as  hell." 

"  We  hope,  and  sincerely  trust  there  will  be  no  truckling  on  the  part  of  our  northern  representatives, 
when  this  mighty  project  shall  come  up  before  them  in  all  its  questionable  shapes." 

The  New  Hampshire  Patriot  (democratic  paper)  of  November  23, 1843,  speaking  of  annexation 
said; 

"  He,  (the  President)  and  his  gang  will  probably  attempt  to  throw  this  question  into  Congress  as  a  fire 
brand.  It  may  produce  mischief,  but  we  trust  that  the  democrats  have  good  sense  enough  to  avoid  being 
distracted  by  the  acts  of  the  enemy." 

The  Dover  Gazette,  New  Hampshire,  in  the  fall  of  1843,  in  an  article  against  the  admission  of 
Texas,  among  other  things,  said  : 

"  The  admissioR  of  Texas  into  the  Union  would  be  a  public  disgrace,  and  disgrace  us  in  the  eyes  of  all 
the  civilized  world.  It  would  array  against  us  the  moral  influence  of  all  Christendom,  and  draw  upon  us 
the  just  retribution  of  an  offended  God." 

At  a  democratic  convention  held  at  Readfield,  Maine,  in  the  summer  of  1843,  to  nominate  a 
candidate  for  Congress,  for  the  3d  Congressional  District,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  the  impropriety  and  inexpediency  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States,  op 
pose  insuperable  objections  to  its  admins-ion  into  the  Union  ;  and  that  the  silly  representation  of  federal 
presses,  that  the  democratic  party  are  in  alliance  with  the  slave  power  of  the  South,  in  a  systematic  de 
sign  to  effect  the  admission  of  Texas,  is  entirely  unsupported  by  any  facts,  or  by  the  slightest  indications 
in  any  quarter,  giving  such  a  supposition  the  appearance  of  truth  ;  and  is,  therefore,  a  wilful  and  delibe 
rate  fabrication  of  the  federal  party  for  base  and  partisan  purposes." 

Here,  Mr.  President,  we  have  the  views  of  the  patriotic  democracy  of  the  3d  Congressional  Dia- 
ttigt  in  Maine  upon  the  subject  of  Texas  annexation*  The  charge  that  the  democratic  party  were 


11 

m  favor  of  the  measure,  is  declared  to  be  a  wilful  falsehood,  tittered  by  the  federal  parry  for  base  and 
partisan  purposes.  But,  sir,  this  hostility  to  annexation  was  not  confined  to  the  3d  Congressional 
District  in  Maine,  the  democracy  of  the  whole  State  opposed  it  by  strong  resolutions  passed  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  in  tne  winter  of  1843. 

Here,  sir,  are  the  resolutions  of  the  Democratic  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  passed  in  1843  I 

Resolved,  That  under  no  circumstances  whatever,  can  the  people  of  Massachusetts  regard  ihe  proposi 
tion  to  admit  Texas  inio  the  Union,  in  nny  other  light  than  as  dangerous  to  its  continuance  in  peace,  in 
prosperity,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  tho^e  blessings  which  it  is  the  object  of  a  free  government  to  secure. 

Resolved,  That,  l he  Senators  and  Kepreteutatives  of  Massachusetts,  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  be  requested  to  spare  no  exertions  to  oppose — and,  if  possible,  to  prevent- -the  adoption  of  the 
proposition  referred  to. 

Resolved,  That  his  excellency,  the  Governor,  be  requested  to  transmit  one  copy  of  these  resolutions  to 
the  executive  of  each  of  the  United  States,  and  a  like  copy  to  each  Senator  ana  Representative  in  Con 
gress  from  Massachusetts." 

The  democracy  of  Massachusetts  regarded  the  admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union  as  dangerous 
to  its  perpetuity,  and  under  no  circumstances  whatever,  could  they  consent  to  it. 

Ex-President  Van  Buren  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Hammett,  under  date  of  April  20,  1844,  opposed  an 
nexation,  because,  in  his  judgment,  it  would  involve  us  in  a  war  with  Mexico. 

And  the  Washington  Globe  of  the  first  of  May,  1844,  contains  the  following  editorial  article: 

"  We  concur  witli  Mr.  Van  Buren  fully  and  cordially  in  this  view,  and  say  it  is  the  only  wise, honora 
ble,  safe,  and  practicable  course.  Mexico  and  Texas  are  now  at  war ;  the  armistice  admits  it,  (a  circum 
stance  of  which  we  were  not  apprised  when  we  wrote  our  first  article  on  this  subject;)  and  to  adopt  the 
Texans  as  our  citizens  at  this  time,  is  to  rrake  ourselves  a  party  to  the  war,  and  to  take  upon  ourselves 
the  business  of  its  conclusion,  either  by  negotiation  or  by  arms.  It  requires  no  declaration  of  war  from 
Mexico  to  involve  us.  From  the  moment  we  admit  Texas,  we  make  her  a  territory  of  the  Union  ;  and 
it  would  be  unlawful  and  punishable  in  her  to  treat  with  Mexico  or  to  fight  alone  with  Mexico.  The 
United  States  alone  could  treal  or  fight ;  and  thus,  from  the  day  of  the  ratification  of  this  treaty,  the 
United  States  and  Mexico  would  be  at  war;  commerce  between  them  would  cease,  and  they  would  re 
main  at  wa?,  and  commerce  remain  broken  up,  until  the  negotiation;)  or  the  arms  of  the  Urited  States  ter 
minated  the  adopted  war.  This  is  clear  common  sense,  and  no  one  can  deny  it." 

"  We  have  been  looking  a  little  further  in  the  published  documents  which  accompany  the  treaty,  and 
every  step  amazes  us  more  and  more.  We  find  that  Lord  Aberdeen  ana  the  British  Minister  here  utterly 
deny  the  Duff  Green  story,  sent  from  London  in  August  Jafct,  of  the  designs  of  England  upon  Texas, 
which  is  made  ihe  foundation  of  this  whole  proceeding.  We  believe  it  can  easily  be  proved,  that  the 
whole  scheme  of  getting  up  the  Texas  question,  precisely  as  that  question  now  is,  existed  long  before 
Duff  Green  furnished  that  pretext,  and  that  all  this  story  of  British  interference,  now  put  forth  as  the 
pretext  for  the  moment,  ha*  been  invented  siftce  the  movement  was  organized." — Globe,  May  4,  1844. 

"  If  the  General  Government  should  take  this  step,  in  violation  of  the  treaty  with  Mexico,  would  the 
character  of  our  country  be  left  to  our  posterity  the  same  noble  and  honorable  inheritance  which  was 
handed  down  to  us  by  Washington,  Jefferson,  and  Jackson  ? 

"  We  do  not  believe  the  great  mass  of  our  countrymen  are  willing  to  sacrifice  the  honor,  the  renown, 
and  the  real  glory  of  thi.»  country  lor  any  earthly  acquisition.  If  then,  Texas  has  admitted,  by  a  solemn 
proclamation,  the  existence  of  a  war  between  her  and  Mexico  ;  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
has,  by  a  solemn  official  document,  declared  its  full  knowledge  that  this  is  the  state  of  the  relations  be 
tween  Texas  and  Mexico,  how  can  the  President  and  Senate  of  the  United  States,  without  sacrificing  the 
honor  of  the  country,  adopt  this  war  with  Mexico,  in  the  face  oi  our  treaty  of  peace  with  that  country. — 
Globe,  May  15,  1844. 

Here,  sir,  we  have  not  only  a  full  endorsement  of  Mr.  Van  Buren's  views  against  annexation,  but 
a  strong  argument  showing  that  Mexico  and  Texas  were  at  war,  and  that  the  adoption  of  the 
measure  would  make  us  a  party  to  the  war,  and  compel  us  to  bring  it  to  a  conclusion,  either  by  ne 
gotiation  or  by  arms.  Well,  sir,  as  the  northern  democracy  anticipated,  the  "  fire-brand"  was 
thrown  into  Congress.  On  the  22d  of  April,  1844,  President  Tyler  transmitted  to  the  Senate,  for 
ratification,  a  treaty  annexing  the  republic  of  Texas  to  the  United  States.  And  what  was  its  fate? 
Why,  sir,  it  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  16  yeas  to  35  nays.  Every  democratic  Senator  from  the 
north,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Woodbury,  from  New  Hampshire,  voted  against  it.  The  rejec 
tion  of  the  treaty,  however,  was  but  a  temporary  defeat  of  the  measure.  The  Baltimore  Conven 
tion,  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  democratic  candidates  for  President  and  Vice  Presi 
dent,  took  the  foreign  relations  of  the  country  in  charge,  and  resolved  upon  the  re-annexation  of 
Texas  and  the  re-occupation  of  Oregon.  How,  Mr.  President,  was  this  resolution  received  by  the 
northern  democracy  ?  New  York  rebelled  at  once.  The  leaders  of  the  party  came  out  in  a  circu 
lar  denouncing  it  as  an  unauthorised  interpolation  into  the  democratic  creed,  and  refused  to  sustain 
it.  Mr.  Van  Buren,  their  favorite  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  had  been  rejected  by  that  conven 
tion  for  his  opposition  to  annexation.;  and  Mr.  Polk,  known  to  be  friendly  to  the  measure,  had  re 
ceived  the  nomination.  In  this  condition  of  things,  it  was  a  work  of  some  difficulty  to  reconcile 
the  democracy  of  New  York  to  the  nominees  of  the  convention.  But  difficult  as  the  task  seemed, 
it  was  at  length  accomplished.  'The  honorable  Silas  Wright,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Senate  in 
1844,  and  had  voted  against  the  treaty  of  annexation,  and  who  was  kncwn  to  be  "strongly  opposed 
to  the  measure,  was  nominated  as  a  candidate  for  governor.  This  nomination  reconciled  the  de 
mocracy  to  vote  for  Mr.  Polk,  provided  no  democratic  member  of  Congress  should  be  elected  who 
was  not  pledged  against  annexation.  The  news  of  this  arrangement  of  family  difficulties  in  New 
York  was  soon  conveyed  to  the  New  England  democracy.  Mr,  Wright'*  aomiaatioD,  it  wa»  fiaid> 


12 

would  secure  New  York  to  Mr.  Polk,  and  New  England  must  come  in  and  sustain  the  party.  6p= 
position  to  annexation  soon  began  to  die  away,  and,  in  a  few  weeks,  the  whole  democratic  party 
wheeled  into  the  ranks  and  gave  their  support  to  the  nominees  of  the  convention. 

Now,  sir,  to  keep  up  the  party  character  of  the  measure,  I  will  go  back  to  the  resolution  of  an-1 
nexatiort.  In  the  winter  of  1845,  after  the  election  of  Mr.  Polk,  a  joint  resolution  was  introduced 
into  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States,  and,  on  the 
same  day,  I  believe,  a  resoluiion  for  the  same  purpose  was  introduced  into  the  Senate.  On  the  25th 
of  January,  the  test  vote  was  taken  on  the  resolution  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  it  was 
passed— Yeas,  113,  Nays,  106,  every  whig  in  the  House,  with  the  exception  of  three  from  Tennes 
see,  two  from  Georgia,  and  one  from  Alabama,  voting  in  the  negative. 

The  House  resolution  came  to  the  Senate,  and  the  honorable  Senator  from  Alabama,  (Mr.  BA<;- 
BY,)  among  others,  made  an  able  speech  against  it.  He  denied  the  constitutional  power  of  Con 
gress  to  bring  into  the  Union  a  foreign  State,  by  a  joint  resolution  ;  that  power,  he  maintained,  be 
longed,  exclusively j  to  another  branch  of  the  government,  viz  :  the  treaty  making  power.  After  this 
avowal  of  the  Senator  from  Alabama,  that  he  could  not  support  the  resolution  as  it  came  from  the 
House,  Mr.  Walker,  then  a  Senator  from  Mississippi,  moved  an  amendment  conferring  upon  the 
President  the  power  to  withhold  the  resolution,  if,  in  his  judgment  and  discretion,  he  should  deem  it 
most  advisable,  and  to  negotiate  with  the  republic  of  Texas  for  her  admission  into  the  Union.  The 
amendment  was  adopted.  A  motion  was  then  made,  by  a  Senator  on  this  side  of  the  chamber,  to 
strike  out  the  first  and  Second  sections  of  the  resolution  and  confine  the  President  to  negotiation 
alone  for  the  acquisition  of  the  country.  This  measure  was  opposed  and  defeated — the  Senatof 
from  Alabama  voting  with  the  majority.  The  resolution  was  then  passed  by  a  vote  of  27  yeas,  to 
25  nays,  every  democratic  Senator  voting  in  the  affirmative,  and  every  whig  Senator,  with  the  ex 
ception  of  Mr.  HENDERSON,  from  Mississippi,  Mr.  JOHNSON,  from  Louisiana,  and  Mr.  MEKRICK,  from 
Maryland,  voting  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  BAGBY.  I  do  not  suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  Senator  intends  to  do  me  the  slightest 
injustice  in  reference  to  what  I  said  then  or  at  any  time;  What  I  then  said  was  ;  and  I  repeat  it 
now,  that  I  never  would  vote  for  the  resolutions  as  they  came  from  the  House  of  Representatives, 
but  that  I  would  vote  for  the  proposition  as  amended  by  the  Senate.  I  disclaimed  the  idea  of  its 
being  indispensably  necessary  to  annex  Texas  by  treaty,  but  said  it  might  be  done  by  treaty,  or 
compact,  and  cited  the  compact  between  the  United  States  and  Georgia,  in  1802,  as  a  case  in 
point. 

Mr.  UPHAM.     The  Senator  opposed  the  resolution  as  it  came  from  the  House. 

Mr.  BAGBY.     Decidedly. 

Mr.  UPHAM.  No  consideration  could  induce  me  to  misrepresent  the  honorable  Senator  in  any 
speech  he  has  made,  or  any  vote  he  has  given  upon  this  question.  I  alluded  to  the  speech  and 
votes  of  the  Senator  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  first  and  second  sections  of  the  resolution 
presented  to  the  republic  of  Texas,  never  had  a  majority  of  the  Senate  in  their  favor. 

The  democratic  Senators  from  the  North  who  voted  against  annexation  in  1844,  Toted  for  it  in 
1845.  Now,  what  happened  in  the  nine  months  that  elapsed  between  tfee  rejection  of  the  treaty 
and  the  passage  of  the  resolution,  to  change  their  minds  upon  the  subject  ?  Were  the  objections 
urged  against  the  measure  less  formidable  in  1845  than  they  were  in  1844  ?  Was  annexation  less 
objectionable  to  the  democracy  of  the  North  after  it  became  a  party  measure  than  it  was  before  it 
assumed  a  party  character  1  These  are  questions  worthy  of  consideration,  and  on  some  convenient 
occasion  I  hope  they  will  be  answered. 

The  resolution  of  annexation  having  passed  both  Houses  of  Congress,  President  Tyler,  on  the 
1st  of  March,  1845,  approved  it ;  and  the  next  day  he  sent  oft'  his  messenger  with  directions  to 
submit  the  first  and  second  sections  of  the  resolution  to  the  republic  of  Texas,  as  an  overture  for 
her  admission,  as  a  State,  into  our  Union.  In  this  condition  of  affairs,  President  Tyler  retired,  and 
the  new  administration  came  into  power  ;  and  what,  sir,  was  the  first  act  of  the  new  President? 
It  was  to  declare  his  approval  of  the  resolution  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  to  assure  the  coun 
try  that,  in  his  opinion,  our  title  to  the  Oregon  country  was  "clear  and  unquestionable."  But,  sir, 
it  has  been  said  by  Senators,  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber,  that  President  Polk  is  in  nowise 
responsible  for  the  manner  of  annexation.  The  Senator  from  Tennessee,  (Mr.  TURNEY,)  in  his 
speech  the  other  day,  said  that  annexation  took  place  under  the  Tyl«r  administration  ;  that  Presi 
dent  Polk  had  no  connexion  with  it  or  power  over  it ;  that  Mr.  Tyler,  in  the  last  hours  of  his  ad 
ministration,  selected  the  mode  of  annexation,  and  thereby  deprived  the  new  administration  of  the 
power  to  withhold  the  resolution  and  negotiate  for  the  acquisition  of  the  country. 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  Senator  is  laboring  under  a  great  mistake  in  this  matter.  Mr.  Polk 
had  as  much  to  do  in  selecting  the  mode  of  annexation  as  Mr.  Tyler.  He  not  only  approved  of 
the  proceedings  of  President  Tyler,  but  directed  our  Charge  d' Affairs  in  Texas  to  present  the  first 
and  second  sections  of  the  resolution  to  that  republic  for  her  acceptance.  The  message  of  Decem 
ber  2,  1845,  will  settle  this  question.  The  President  says : 

"  In  pursuance  of  the  joint  resolution  of  Congress,  fjr  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,  my  prede 
cessor,  on  the  tliird  day  of  March,  1845,  elected  to  submit  the  first  and  second  sections  of  that  resolution 
to  the  Republic  of  Texas,,  as  an  overture,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  for  her  admission  as  a  State 
into  our  Union.  This  election  I  approved,  and  accordingly  the  charge  d'affaires  of  the  United  States,  in 
'i«xaa,  under  instructions  of  the  lOihof  March,  1845,  presented  these  sections  of  the  reflation  for  the 
acceptance  of  that  republic." 


13 

Here,  Mr.  President,  is  a  full  approval  of  all  the  proceedings  of  Mr.  Tyler,  touching  the  manner 
of  annexation.  The  first  and  second  sections  of  the  resolutions  were  presented  to  Texas  for  her 
acceptance,  under  instructions  from  President  Polk,  given  seven  days  after  Mr.  Tyler's  term  of  of 
fice  had  expired.  Mr.  Polk  was  not  bound  by  the  proceedings  of  his  predecessor.  He  had  full 
power  to  withhold  the  resolution,  and  proceed  by  negotiation,  if  he  preferred  that  mode  of  acqui 
sition. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  time  to  leave  this  branch  of  the  subject,  and  pass  to  the  order  of  the  13th 
of  January,  1846,  for  the  march  of  the  army  from  Corpus  Christi,  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande. 
This  order,  in  my  judgment,  was  an  act  of  Executive  usurpation,  and  the  immediate  cause  of  the 
war.  If  our  army  had  remained  at  Corpus  Christi,  the  acquisition  of  Texas  would,  to  use  the  lan 
guage  of  the  President — 

"  Have  been  a  bloodless  achievement.  No  arm  of  force  would  have  been  raised  to  produce  the  result. 
The  sword  would  have  had  no  part  in  the  victory..' 

The  resolution  of  annexation  declares: 

"  That  Congress  dolh  consent,  that  the  territory  properly  included  within  and  rightfully  belonging  to 
the  Republic  of  Texas,  may  be  erected  into  a  new  State,  <fcc.,  in  order  that  the  same  may  be  admitted  as 
one  of  the  States  of  this  Union.  Said  State  to  be  formed,  subject  to  the  adjustment  by  this  Govern 
ment  of  all  questions  of  boundary  that  may  arise  with  other  Governments." 

It  appears  on  the  face  of  the  resolution,  that  a  portion  of  the  territory  claimed  by  the  republic 
of  Texas  was  in  dispute,  and  might  not  properly  belong  to  her,  and  that  her  right  to  the  disputed 
territory  was  a  question  to  be  settled  by  this  Government  and  Mexico.  The  republic  of  Texas  had, 
by  her  act  of  Congress,  passed  in  December,  1836,  declared  the  Rio  Grande,  from  its  mouth  to  its 
source,  to  be  her  southwestern  boundary ;  but  she  had  not,  at  that  time,  nor  at  the  time  the  resolu 
tion  of  annexation  was  passed,  possession  of  any  portion  of  the  country  west  of  the  Nueces,  ex 
cept  a  small  settlement  on  the  western  bank  of  that  river.  The  whole  territory  between  the  Nueces 
and  the  Rio  Grande,  as  I  shall  show  before  I  resume  my  seat,  with  the  exception  of  the  small  set 
tlement  mentioned,  was  in  possession  of  Mexico,  and  claimed  as  a  part  of  her  republic.  Now,  sir, 
what  was  the  duty  of  the  President  in  regard  to  this  matter  ?  What  are  his  powers  in  the  adjust 
ment  of  international  controversies  1  They  are  pacific  ;  not  belligerent.  His  instrumentalities  are 
diplomatic  agents  ;  not  armies  and  navies.  He  makes  contracts  and  treaties  with  foreign  govern 
ments;  but  he  has  no  authority,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  to  call  on  the  military  power  of 
the  country  to  enforce  their  performance.  He  is,  it  is  true,  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy,  but  he  has  no  authority  to  employ  them  against  a  foreign  nation  for  any  purpose  whatever, 
without  the  order  of  Congress.  The  whole  war-making  power  is,  by  the  Constitution,  lodged  in 
Congress.  And  Congress  alone  is  constitutionally  invested  with  the  power  of  changing  the  condi 
tion  of  the  country  from  peace  to  war.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  as  expressed  to 
Congress  in  his  confidential  message  of  December  9,1805,  in  regard  to  a  question  of  disputed  boun 
dary  between  the  United  States  and  Spain,  gi owing  out  of  our  Louisiana  purchase. 

"  After  nearly  five  months  of  fruitless  endeavor,"  says  Mr.  Jefferson,  "  our  minister  ended  the  confer 
ences,  without,  having  been  able  to  obtain  indemnity  for  spoliations  of  any  description,  or  any  satisfaction 
as  to  the  boundaries  of  Louisiana,  other  than  a  declaration  that  we  had  no  rights  eastward  of  the  Iberville." 

"  Considering  that  Congress  alone  is  constitutionally  invested  wi£h  the  power  of  changing  our  condi 
tion  from  peace  to  war,  I  have  thought  it  my  duty  to  await  their  authority  for  using  force  in  any  degree 
which  could  be  avoided." 

This,  Mr.  President,  is  sound  constitutional  doctrine,  and  if  Mr.  Polk  had  followed  in  the  foot 
steps  of  his  illustrious  predecessor,  this  war  would  have  been  avoided.  It  was  the  duty  of  the 
President  to  settle  this  question  of  disputed  boundary  with  Mexico,  by  negotiation  if  he  could,  but 
if  his  efforts  failed,  it  was  equally  his  duty  to  inform  Congress  of  the  fact,  and  await  their  authori 
ty  for  marching  the  army  on  to  the  disputed  territory.  Congress  was  in  session,  and  could  have 
been  consulted  without  the  least  inconvenience. 

The  ground  I  assume  is,  that  the  territory  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande  being  dis 
putable,  and  most  of  it  in  possession  cf  Mexico,  the  President  had  no  right  to  take  forcible  possession 
of  it,  even  if  it  rightfully  belonged  to  the  State  of  Texas,  without  authority  from  Congress.  We 
have  had  many  questions  of  disputed  boundary  with  foreign  nations,  and  no  administration,  ex 
cept  the  present,  ever  thought  of  taking  forcible  possession  of  the  disputed  territory.  Our  north 
eastern  boundary  was  in  dispute  from  the  peace  of  1783  to  1842,  and  no  attempt  was  made  by  any 
of  our  Presidents  to  take  possession,  by  force,  of  the  territory  we  claimed.  But,  Mr.  President, 
various  pretences  have  been  set  up  to  justify  the  march  of  our  army  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio 
Grande.  The  honorable  Senator  from  Maryland,  (Mr.  JOHNSON,)  in  his  eloquent  speech  upon  this 
question  said,  that  the  United  States  had  received  the  republic  of  Texas  into  the  Union  without 
antecedently  defining  her  boundaries,  and  under  a  constitution  including  the  disputed  territory  ; 
and,  therefore,  they  were  bound  to  defend  it.  Sir,  the  constitution  of  Texas,  formed  after  the  pas 
sage  of  the  resolution  of  annexation,  and  under  which  she  was  admitted  as  a  State  of  this  Union, 
did  not  define  her  southwestern  boundary — that  was  left  an  open  question  to  be  settled  by  negotia 
tion  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico.  Again,  Mr.  President,  the  honorable  Senator  said 
that  Mexico  had  mustered  an  army  cm  the  Rio  Grande  with  the  declared  object  of  invading  Texas, 
and  recovering  the  whole  to  her  own  sovereignty,  and  that  we  had  a  clear,  undeniable  right  ta 


14 

meet  her  there  and  strike  the  first  blow.  But  I  understood  the  Senator  to  admit,  that  our  right 
to  meet  her  there  and  strike  the  blow  could  be  justified  only  upon  the  principle  of  self-defence. 
If  we  were  in  no  danger  of  a  blow  from  Mexico — if  she  had  no  force  collected  for  the  invasion 
of  Texas,  then  our  march  into  the  disputed  territory  was  an  unjustifiable  act  of  hostility.  Now, 
sir,  where  is  the  evidence  that  Mexico  had  mustered  an  army  on  the  Rio  Grande  with  the  declared 
object  of  invading  and  conquering  Texas?  Did  the  President  say  any  thing  of  the  kind  in  his 
message  of  the  llth  of  May,  1846,  informing  Congress  that  he  had  ordered  the  army  to  the  left 
bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  ?  No,  sir,  he  assigned  ho  such  reason  for  the  order.  He  said  in  that 
message  that  our  force  remained  at  Corpus  Christi  until  after  he  had  received  such  information 
from  Mexico  as  rendered  it  probable,  if  not  certain,  that  the  Nexican  Government  would  refuse  to 
receive  our  envoy.  Our  army,  then,  was  ordered  to  occupy  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  be 
cause  the  President  apprehended  that  Mexico  would  reject  our  envoy.  Now,  Mr.  President,  to 
show  that  Mexico  had  mustered  no  army  on  the  Rio  Grande  with  a  view  to. the  invasion  of  Texas, 
and  that  the  President  knew  it  when  he  issued  the  order  of  the  13th  January,  1846,  I  call  the  atten 
tion  of  the  Senate  and  the  country  to  Gen.  Taylor's  correspondence  with  the  War  Department 
while  he  remained  at  Corpus  Christi.  • 

In  a  despatch  to  the  War  Depattment,  dated  Corpus  Christi,  August  20th,  1845,  Gen.  Taylor 
says  that — 

"  Caravans  of  traders  arrive  occasionally  from  the  Rio  Grande,  but  bring  no  news  of  importance. 
They  represent  that  there  are  no  regular  troops  on  that  river,  except  at  Matamoras,  and  do  not  seem  to  be 
aware  of  any  preparations  for  a  demonstration  on  this  side  of  'the  river." 

On  the  6th  of  September,  1845,  in  another  despatch,  he  says: 

"I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  a  confidential  agent,  despatched  some  days  since  to  Matamoras,  has 
returned,  and  reports  that  no  extraordinary  preparations  are  going  forward  there  ;  that  the  garrison  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  increased,  and  that  our  consul  is  of  opinion  there  will  be  no  declaration  of  war." 

Again,  in  another  despatch  of  September  14th,  1845,  Gen.  Taylor  pays : 

"  We  have  no  news  of  interest  from  the  frontier.  Arista,  at  the  last  accounts,  was  at  Mier,  but 
without  any  force  ;  nor  is  there,  as  yet,  any  concentration  of  troops  on  the  river." 

In  a  despatch  under  date  of  October  llth,  1845,  he  says  that — 

•'Recent  arrivals  from  the  Rio  Grande  bring  no  news,  or  information  of  a  different  aspect  from 
that  which  1  reported  in  my  last.  The  views  expressed  in  previous  communications  relative  to  the  paci 
fic  disposition  of  the  border  people  on  both  sides  of  the  river  are  confirmed." 

And  in  another  despatch  under  date  of  January  7,  1846,  he  says : 

"  We  have  many  arrivals  from  Matamoras  and  other  points  on  the  river,  but  they  bring  no  intelligence 
of  interest.  A  recent  scout  of  volunteers  from  San  Antonio  struck  the  river  near  Presidio,  Rio 
Grande,  and  the  commander  repoits  everything  quiet  in  that  quarter." 

Who,  Mr.  President,  with  this  evidence  before  him,  can  say  that  Gen.  Taylor,  on  the  13th  of 
January,  1846,  was  ordered  to  the  Rio  Grande  to  meet  and  repel  a  Mexican  army  there  collected 
for  the  invasion  of  Texas?  On  the  7th  of  January,  only  six  days  before  the  order  was  issued, 
General  Taylor  informed  the  President  that  every  thing  was  quiet  in  that  quarter.  But,  sir,  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Illinois,  (Mr.  DOUGLASS,)  has  attempted  to  justify  the  order,  on  another 
ground.  He  says  it  was  issued  on  the  recommendation  and  at  the  request  of  General  Taylor.  If 
this  were  true  it  would  be  no  justification  for  the  President.  The  expediency  of  such  a  measure 
was  a  question  for  Congress  to  settle.  General  Taylor  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  But,  Mr.  Pre 
sident,  the  army  was  not  ordered  to  the  Rio  Grande  on  the  recommendation  of  General  Taylor. 
All  he  said  upon  the  subject  is  contained  in  his  letter  to  the  War  Department,  under  date  of  Octo 
ber  4th,  1845,  more  than  three  months  before  he  received  orders  to  leave  Corpus  Christi.  In  that 
letter  he  says : 

"  It  will  be  recollected  that  the  instructions  of  June  the  15th,  issued  by  Mr.  Bancroft,  then  Acting 
Secretary  of  War,  directed  me  to  select  and  occupy,  on  or  near  the  Rio  Grande,  such  a  site  as  will 
consist  with  the  health  of  the  troops,  and  will  be  best  adapted  to  repel  invasion,  <jrc/' 

After  assigning  the  reasons  which  induced  him  to  concentrate  his  fojce  at  Corpus  Christi,  he 
proceeds  as  follows : 

"  It  is  with  great  deference  that  I  make  any  suggestions  on  topics  which  may  become  matter  of 
delicate  negotiation ;  but  if  our  government,  in  settling  the  question  of  boundary,  makes  the  line  of 
the  Rio  Grande  an  ultimatum,  1  cannot-doubt  that  the  settlement  will  be  greatly  facilitated  and  hastesed 
by  our  taking  possession  atonce.of  one  or  two  suitable  points  on  or  quite  near  that  river.  Our  strength 
and  state  of  preparation  should  be  displayed  in  a  manner  not  to  be  mistaken." 

If  our  Government  had  determined,  at  all  events,  to  make  the  Rio  Grande  the  western  boundary 
of  Texas,  the  sooner  we  let  Mexico  know  it  the  better.  This  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  all 
•General  Taylor  said  upon  the  subject.  His  suggestion  was  based  upon  the  ground  that  the  line  of 
the  Rio  Grande  was  our  ultimatum. 

Mr.  President,  there  must  have  been,  at  the  bottom  of  this  movement,  something  more  than  a 
desire  to  settle  upon  just  and  honorable  terms  the  western  boundary  of  Texas ;  and  I  will  endea 
vor  to  show  what  it  was.  Our  Government  was  aware  that  the  annexation  of  Texas  would  give 
offence  to  Mexico,  and  an  effort  was  made  to  reconcile  her  to  the  measure.  On  the  19th  of  April, 


15      • 

1844,  Mr.  Calhoun,  the  Secretary  of  State,  directed  Mr.  Green,  our  Charge  il' Affaires  in  Mexico, 
to  inform  that  Government  that  a  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States  had 
been  signed  by  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  the  two  Governments,  and  would  be  sent  to  the  Senate, 
without  delay,  for  its  approval.  In  making  this  fact  known,  Mr.  Green  was  directed  to  give  the 
Mexican  Government  the  strongest  assurance  that,  in  adopting  the  measure,  we  were  actuated  by 
no  feeling  of  disrespect  or  indifference  to  the  honor  or  dignity  of  Mexico  ;  and  that  the  step  was 
forced  upon  the  United  States  in  self-defence,  in  consequence  of  the  policy  adopted  by  Great  Bri 
tain  in  reference  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Texas.  Mr.  Green  was  further  enjoined  to  assure 
the  Mexican  Government  that  it  was  our  desire  to  settle  all  questions  between  the  two  countries 
which  might  grow  out  of  the  treaty,  or  any  other  cause,  on  the  most  liberal  terms,  including  that 
of  boundary.  On  the  23d  of  May  Mr.  Green  gave  the  Mexican  Government  notice  of  the  treaty 
and  strong  assurance  that  the  question  of  boundary  would  be  settled  on  the  most  liberal  terms. 

On  the  10th  of  September,  1844,  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  Secretary  of  State,  directed  Mr.  Shannon,  our 
Minister  in  Mexico,  to  renew  to  the  Mexican  Government  the  declaration  made  by  our  Charge 
d'Affaire?,  that  if  annexation  should  be  consummated,  the  United  States  would  be  prepared  to  adjust 
all  questions  growing  out  of  it,  including  that  of  boundary,  on  the  most  liberal  terms. 

Well,  Mr.  President,  after  having  given  these  strong  assurances  to  Mexico,  in  regard  to  the  ques 
tion  of  boundary,  we  passed  the  resolution  annexing  Texas  to  the  Uuited  States,  and  it  was  approv 
ed  on  the  1st  of  March,  1845. 

On  the  15th  of  June,  1845,  about  three  months  after  the  passage  of  the  resolution,  and  five  months 
before  Texas  accepted  our  proposition  of  annexation,  the  President  ordered  General  Taylor  to  the 
left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  to  protect  what,  in  the  event  of  annexation,  was  to  be  our  western 
border.  Yes,  Mr.  President,  before  annexation  was  consummated,  the  administration,  notwith 
standing  the  strong  assurances  given  to  Mexico,  that  the  question  of  boundary  would  be  settled  upon 
the  most  liberal  terms,  had  determined  that  the  Rio  Grande  should  be  the  western  boundary  of 
Texas.  Was  this  acting  in  good  faith  towards  Mexico  1  Was  it  calculated  to  allay  her  opposition, 
and  reconcile  her  to  annexation  \  No,  sir,  it  was  calculated  to  increase  her  hostility  to  the  mea 
sure,  and  widen  the  breach  between  the  two  Governments. 

Mr.  SEVIER.  The  order  of  the  15th  of  June  was,  that  Gen.  Taylor  should  remain  on  the 
Sabine. 

Mr.  UPHAM.     I  have  it  in  my  hand  and  will  read  it. 

The  acting  Secretary  of  War,  in  his  orders  to  General  Taylor,  under  date  of  June  15th,  1845, 
says : 

"  The  p«int  of  your  ultimate  destination  is  the  western  frontier  of  Texas,  where  you  will  select  and 
occupy,  on  or  near  the  Rio  Grande  Del  Norte,  such  site  as  will  consist  with  the  health  of  the  troops,  will 
be  best  adapted  to  repel  invasion,  and  to  protect  what,  in  the  event  of  annexation,  will  be  our  western 
border." 

Here,  sir,  is  the  declaration  of  the  President,  by  his  Secretary  of  War,  that,  in  the  event  of  an 
nexation,  the  Rio  Grande  will  be  our  western  border.  I  was,  therefore,  correct  in  the  assertion  that 
the  Administration  had  determined,  long  before  annexation  was  consummated,  to  force  upon  Mex 
ico  the  boundary  of  the  Rio  Grande.  And,  Mr.  President,  if  time  would  permit,  I  could  show  by 
the  correspondence  of  the  War  Department  with  our  military  and  naval  officers  in  Mexico,  that  the 
Executive,  after  he  had  yielded  to  Great  Britain  5°  40'  of  territory  in  Oregon,  to  which  he  had  de 
clared  our  title  "clear  and  unquestionable,"  turned  his  attention  to  Mexico,  with  a  fixed  determination 
to  wrest  from  her,  by  the  sword,  New  Mexico  and  Upper  California.  On  the  3d  of  June,  1846,  the 
Secretary  of  War,  in  his  despatch  to  General  Kearney,  says : 

"  It  has  been  decided  by  the  President  to  be  of  the  greatest  importance  in  the  pending  Avar  with  Mexi 
co,  to  take  the  earliest  possession  of  Upper  California.  An  expedition  with  that  view  is  hereby  ordered, 
and  you  are  designated  to  command  it." 

In  a  despatch  to  Col.  Stevenson,  under  date  of  September  llth,  1846,  the  Secretary  says,  "  the 
military  occupation  of  California  is  the  main  object  in  view."  In  another  despatch,  to  Commodore 
Sloat,  commanding  our  naval  forces  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  under  date  of  July  12th,  1846,  he  says : 

"  The  object  of  the  Unit*l  States  is,  under  its  rights  as  a  belligerent  nation,  to  possess  itself  entirely  of 
Upper  California." 

Commodore  Sloat,  in  his  general  order  of  July  7th,  1846,  says,  "  it  is  not  only  our  duty  to  take 
California,  but  to  preserve  it  afterwards,  as  a  part  of  the  United  States,  at  all  hazards."  In  regard 
to  New  Mexico,  General  Kearney,  in  his  letter  to  the  Department  of  War,  under  date  of  August 
24th,  1846,  says: 

"  On  the  22d,  I  issued  a  proclamation,  claiming  the  whole  of  New  Mexico,  with  it  sthen  boundaries,  as 
a  territory  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  taking  it  under  our  protection."  "  It  is  the  wish  and 
intention  of  the  United  States,"  (says  Ger.eral  Kearney  in  his  proclamation,)  "  to  provide  for  New  Mex 
ico  a  free  government,  with  the  least  posible  delay,  similar  to  those  in  the  United  States  ;  and  the  people 
of  New  Mexico  will  then  be  called  on  to  exercise  the  rights  of  freemen  in  electing  their  own  representa 
tives  to  the  Territorial  Legislatures." 

I  have  not  time,  Mr.  President,  to  pursue  this  branch  of  the  subject  further.  The  extracts  I  have 
read  show,  beyond  all  doubt,  that  the  war  was  waged  for  the  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory,  by 
conquest,  and  not  to  compel  a  just  and  equitable  settlement  of  the  boundary  between  the  two 
countries. 


16 

Mr.  President,  a  few  words  upon  the  claim  of  Texas  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  shall 
close  my  remarks.  In  1824,  Mexico,  by  her  representatives  in  convention  assembled,  formed  and 
adopted  a  constitution  similar  to  ours,  and  became  a  republic.  Texas,  at  that  time,  did  not  contain 
the  required  population  to  become  a  State,  but  was  provisionally  united  with  the  neighboring  prov 
ince  of  Coahuila,  to  form  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  until  the  latter  should  possess  the  neces 
sary  elements  to  form  a  separate  State  for  herself.  In  1833,  the  inhabitants  of  Texas,  having  as 
certained  that  their  numbers  were  equal  to  most,  and  exceeded  those  of  several  of  the  old  States,  held  a 
convention  and  formed  and  adopted  a  constitution  upon  the  principles  of  the  Mexican  republic,  and 
applied  to  the  general  Congress  for  admission  into  the  Union.  Their  application  was  rejected,  and 
their  agent  imprisoned.  In  1834,  the  constitutional  Congress  of  Mexico  was  dissolved  by  a  military 
order  of  General  Santa  Anna,  the  constitution  overthrown,  and  the  State  Governments  abolished. 

In  September,  1835,  General  Cos  invaded  the  province  of  Texas  by  land,  with  orders  to  disarm 
the  citizens,  and  require  an  unconditional  submission  to  the  Central  Military  Government,  under 
penalty  of  expulsion  from  the  country.  A  battle  ensued,  which  terminated  in  the  defeat  of  the  Mex 
icans.  On  the  7th  of  November,  1835,  Texas  declared  that, 

"Whereas,  General  Antonio  Lopez  de  Santa  Anna  and  other  military  chieftains,  have  by  force  of 
arms,  overthrown  the  federal  constitution  of  Mexico, and  dissolved  the  social  compact  which  existed  be 
tween  Texas  and  the  other  members  of  the  confederacy,  now  the  good  people  of  Texas  availing  them 
selves  of  their  natural  rights,  solemnly  declare — 

Jst.  That  they  have  taken  up  arns  in  defenc-.e  of  their  rights  and  liberties, 

2d.  That  Texas  is  no  longer  morally  bound  by  the  compact  of  union. 

3d.  That  they  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  present  authorities  of  the  present  nominal  Mexican  repub 
lic,  have  the  right  to  govern  within  the  limits  of  Texas." 

This  was  considered  an  absolute  separation  from  Mexico,  and  on  the  2d  of  March,  183G,  dele 
gates  of  the  people  from  all  the  districts,  declared  Texas  a  "free,  sovereign,  and  independent  State." 
Under  the  constitution  of  1824,  New  Mexico,  Tamaulipas,  Coahuila,  and  Texas  were  States 
of  the  Mexican  republic  ;  each  having  its  fixed  and  well-defined  boundary — the  Nueces  being  the 
southeastern  boundary  of  Texas.  But  Texas,  as  I  have  before  said,  not  having  a  sufficient  popula 
tion  for  a  separate  State,  was  provisionally  united  with  Coahuila,  and  called  the  State  of  Coahuila 
and  Texas.  After  the  abolition  of  the  State  Governments,  Texas  acted  for  herself,  as  a  separate 
power.  She  had  no  connection  with  Coahuila  or  the  other  Mexican  States.  She  declared  that  the 
authorities  of  the  nominal  Mexican  republic  had  no  right  to  govern  within  the  limits  of  Texas. 
What,  Mr.  President,  at  that  time  were  the  limits  of  Texas?  Mrs.  Mary  Austin  Holley,  in  her 
History  of  Texas,  published  in  1836,  says: 

"Texas  is  situated  between  27°  30'  and  30°  30'  north  latitude,  and  98°  30'  and  99°  38'  west  longitude. 
Its  boundaries  are,  the  Lied  river,  separating  it  from  Arkansas,  on  the  north;  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  on  the 
south  ;  the  Sabine  river  and  Loirsiana,  on  the  east ;  and  the  river  .Nueces,  separating  it  from  Tarnauli- 
pas  and  Coahuila,  on  the  west." 

Mr.  Murray  in  his  Encyiopaedia  of  Geography,  published  in  1838,  gives  the  Nueces  as  the  west 
ern  boundary  of  Texas.  Mr.  Morfit,  an  agent  sent  by  General  Jackson  to  Texas,  in  1836,  to  as 
certain  its  political,  military,  and  civil  condition,  says,  im  his  report,  that 

"  The  political  limits  of  Texas  proper,  previous  to  the  last  revolution,  were  the  Nueces  river  on  the 
west ;  along  the  Red  river  on  the  north  ;  the  Sabine  on  the  east ;  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  on  the  south." 

Mr.  Morfit,  in  speaking  of  the  Texan  Government  formed  by  convention,  further  says : 

"This  convention  took  place  by  writs  of  election  issued  by  the  provisional  government,  and  it  is  said 
that  all  parts  of  Texas  were  represented  in  it,  from  the  extreme  western  settlement  at  tSan  Patricio,  on 
the  Nueces,  to  the  Sabine  and  Red  rivers." 

The  "  extreme  western  settlement  of  Texas  was  at  San  Patricio  on  the  Nueces."  Now,  sir,  by 
•what  authority  did  Texas,  at  the  time  she  became  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  claim  the  Rio 
Grande  as  her  western  boundary]  Had  she  conquered  the  Mexican  States  of  Coahuila,  Tamauli 
pas,  and  New  Mexico,  and  subjected  them  to  her  jurisdiction  and  laws  ?  No,  sir,  she  had  done  no 
such  thing.  Her  extreme  western  settlement  was  San  Patricio,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Nueecs. 

Mexico,  as  I  will  show  from  our  own  documents,  was,  at  the  time  of  annexation,  in  the  quiet  and 
peaceful  possession  of  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  claiming  it  as  a  part  of  her  republic.  Mr. 
Donelson,  our  Charge  d' Affaires  in  Texas,  in  his  letter  to  our  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Buchanan,  under 
date  of  June  23,  1845,  says: 

"  It  is  the  pjlicy  of  those  who  are  on  the  side  of  Mexico  in  the  present  crisi.8,  to  throw  upon  the  United 
States  the  responsibility  of  a  war  for  the  country  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  (rrande.  The  terri 
tory,  you  are  aware,  has  been  in  the  possession  of  both  parties.  Texas  has  held  in  peace  Corpus  Christi. 
Mexico  has  held  Santiago.  Both  parties  have  had  occasional  possession  of  Loredo,  and  other  higher 
points." 

All  that  Texas  held  in  peace  west  of  the  Nueces  was  Corpus  Christi. 
On  the  26  of  June,  1845,  Mr.  Donelson,  in  a  despatch  to  General  Taylor, says: 
"  Corpus  Christi  is  said  to  be  as  healthy  as  Pensacola— a  convenient  place  lor  supplies,  and  is  the  most 
•western  point  now  occupied  by  Texas." 

Again,  in  the  same  despatch,  he  says : 

"  Texas  holds  Corpus  Christ),  Mexico  holds  Santiago,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Rio  Grande." 


17 

Again,  sir  ;  on  the  6th  of  July,  1845,  Mr.  Donelson,  in  another  letter  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  says: 

"  You  are  already  advised  of  my  letter  to  General  Taylor,  of  the  28th  ultimo,  in  which  I  leave  the 
question  of  marching  to  the  Rio  Grande  to  be  decided  by  developments  yet  to  be  made.  If  Mexico  pas 
ses  that  stream,  menacing  Texas,  or  otherwise  threatening  to  disturb  the  territory  of  Texas,  as  it  stood 
when  our  joint  resolution  passed,  our  right  to  rej-el  her  commences,  and  we  may  force  her  to  retire  we«t 
of  the  Rio  Grande." 

Crossing  the  river  without  menacing  Texas,  or  threatening  to  invade  her  territory,  would  be  no 
cause  of  complaint.  Pray,  sir,  if  Texas  extended  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  would  not 
passing  that  river  be  an  invasion  of  her  territory  ?  Most  certainly  it  would.  But  no  force  was  to 
be  used  unless  she  attempted  to  go  further,  threatening  to  disturb  the  territory  of  Texas. 

But  to  proceed.     Mr.  Donelson,  on  the  llth  of  July,  1845,  in  a  despatch  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  says  . 

"  The  proclamation  of  a  truce  be' ween  the  two  nations,  founded  on  propositions  equally  acceptable  to 
them,  leaving  the  question  of  boundary  not  only  an  open  one,  but  Mexico  in  possession  of  the  east  bank 
of  the  Rio  Grande,  seemed  to  me  inconsistent  wilh  the  expectation  that  in  defence  of  the  claim  of  Texas 
our  troops  should  march  immediately  to  that  river." 

Here,  sir,  is  the  express  declaration  of  our  Charge  d' Affaires  in  Texas,  that  Mexico  was  in  the  actual 
possession  of  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  that  Texas  had  never  been  able  to  hold  the  country 
by  the  force  of  her  arms.  Mr.  Donelson  proceeds  to  argue  the  question  as  follows  : 

"  The  grounds  on  which  the  claim  (to  the  Rio  Grande)  would  appear  to  me  defensible,  after  the  admis 
sion  of  '.fexas  into  the  Union,  if  there  be  no  declaration  ef  war  or  invasion  by  Mexico,  may  be  generally 
stated  as  follows  :  f 

"  1st.  The  levolutffiiary  light  to  the  people  of  Texas  to  resist  oppression  and  enforce  such  a  political 
organization  as  they  deem  necessary  to  the  enjoyment  of  theij  happiness.  The  destruction  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  1824,  and  the  despotism  which  followed  it,  furnished  the  most  ample  grounds  for  resistance. 

"  2d.  The  acknowledgement  of  Santa  Anna,  by  whose  concessions,  in  1836,  his  army  was  allowed  to 
return  to  Mexico,  and  carry  with  them  valuable  arms  and  munitions,  and  by  which  Texas  was  prevented 
from  following  up  the  advantages  of  victory,  among  which  was  the  opportunity  of  establishing  herself 
on  the  Rio  Grande. 

"  3d.  The  certainty  of  Texas,  if  not  now,  at  least  in  a  short  period,  to  establish  by  force  her  claim  to 
this  boundary.  This  capacity  is  fairly  inferable  from  the  offer  of  Mexico  to  recognize  her  independence, 
and  was  admitted  by  the  British  and  French  Governments  when  they  become  the  medium  of  the  offer. 
But  independently  of  such  circumstances,  this  capacity  is  self-evident  to  all  who  have  any  knowledge 
of  the  relative  power  and  position  of  Mexico  arid  Texas.  If  Texas,  then,  by  herself,  without  any  con 
nexion  wi;h  the  United  States,  had  reached  the  point  where  she  could  compel  the  recognition  of  the  claim 
to  the  Rio  Grande,  her  right  to  do  so  ought  not  to  be  lessened  by  becoming  a  member  of  ihe  American 
Union. 

"4th.  The  United  States,  after  annexation,  in  addition  to  the  foregoing  grounds,  will  have  the  older 
one  founded  on  the  Louisiana  claim.  That  this  claim  went  as  far  as  the  Kio  Grande,  is  now  much 
more  apparent  than  it  was  in  1819,  when  the  Sabine  was  fixed  as  the  western  limit  of  the  cession  to  us, 
especially  if  it  be  true,  as  i.s  alleged,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Texas  at  that  time,  protested  against  the  right 
of  the  United  Slates  to  deprive  them  of  the  benefits  secured  to  them  in  the  treaty  with  France." 

Does  this  reasoning  of  our  Charge  d' Affaires  look  as  though  he  believed  Texas  had  carried  her  re 
volution  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  subjected  that  country  to  her  jurisdiction  and  laws  ? 
No,  sir — far  from  it.  If  there  should  be  no  declaration  of  war  or  invasion  of  Texas  by  Mexico,  to 
furnish  us  an  excuse  for  seizing  the  country,  we  must  rest  our  claim  to  it  on  the  ground  that  Texas 
could  and  would  have  established,  by  force,  her  claims  to  that  boundary,  if  she  had  not  been  prevented 
by  the  agreement  she  made  with  Santa  Anna,  on  the  12th  of  May,  1836,  by  which  his  army  was 
allowed  to  return  to  Mexico,  and  carry  with  them  valuable  arms  and  munitions  of  war. 

But  this  is  not  all,  Mr.  President.  Jn  1839,  nearly  three  years  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  the 
Texan  Congress,  defining  her  boundary  to  be  the  Rio  Grande,  Canales,  a  Mexican  chief,  attempted, 
with  the  consent  and  aid  of  Texas,  to  establish  the  republic  of  the  Rio  Grande,  to  be  composed  of  the 
States  of  Tamaulipas,  Coahuila,  and  Durango.  Its  independence  was  declared  and  Canales  elected 
President.  Pie  collected  an  army  and  encamped  at  Laredo,  a  small  town  of  Tamaulipas,  on  the 
east  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  where  he  remained  five  or  six  months.  In  April,  1840,  General  Arista, 
at  the  head  of  a  large  Mexican  force,  attacked  and  defeated  Canales,  and  he  retreated  into  Texas. 
In  this  struggle  the  navy  and  army  of  Texas  co-operated  with  Canales.  Before  Canales  undertook 
the  expedition  he  entered  into  a  secret  agreement  with  Texas,  three  articles  of  which  have  been 
published  in  the  newspapers  of  the  day,  and  are  as  follows  : 

"  1st.  The  President  of  the  republic  of  the  Rio  Grande  (General  Canales)  pledges  himself  to  declare  the 
independence  of  the  republic  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  to  declare  and  establish  the  State  and  Federal  Con 
stitution  of  1824,  so  soon  as  he  shall  have  established  his  headquarters  within  the  limits  of  the  territory- 
claimed  by  the  said  republic. 

"  2d.  That  the  republic  of  the  Rio  Grande  shall  immediately  after  the  said  declaration  of  independence, 
recognize  the  independence  of  Texas. 

"  3d.  The  republic  of  Texas  pledges  herself  to  aid  the  federalists  of  the  Rio  Grande  in  their  struggle 
for  independence,  directly  after  her  independence  is  recognized  by  the  republic  of  the  Rio  Grande." 

A'.r.  RUSK  said  he  had  lived  in  Texas  for  fifteen  years,  and  had  never  heard  of  such  agreement, 
and  he  asked  when  and  where  the  paper  was  signed,  its  date,  and  who  signed  it. 

Mr.  UPHAM. — I  cannot  give  the  date  of  the  agreement  nor  the  names  of  the  persons  who 
signed  it.  I  have  only  the  three  first  articles  as  I  found  them  in  the  newspapers  of  the  day. 


18 

Mr.  RUSK  said  that  no  agreement  was  ever  made  with  Canales,  or  any  body,  of  the  kind  al 
luded  to.  Canales  was  considered  there  a  public  highway  robber.  He  had  often  attemptad  to  raise 
insurrection  in  Texas,  as  did  other  Mexican  officers,  but  he  always  kept  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Rio  Grande. 

Mr.  UPHAM. — The  agreement  makes  up  a  part  of  the  history  of  Texas,  and  I  have  never 
before  heard  its  truth  called  in  question.  It  has  been  the  rounds  of  the  newspapers,  and  it  was 
read  in  the  other  end  of  the  capital  in  debate  last  winter  in  presence,  I  presume,  of  the  members 
from  Texas,  and  not,  to  my  knowledge,  denied. 

Mr.  RUSK  said  if  it  was  a  part  of  the  history  of  Texas,  it  had  never  reached  Texas. 

Mr.  UPHAM. — If  the  agreement  be  a  forgery  it  ought  not  to  prejudice  the  claim  of  Texas  tc 
territory  west  of  the  Nneces  ;  but  if  it  be  a  genuine  instrument,  it  goes  very  far  to  show  that  she  had 
•abandoned  all  claim  west  of  that  river. 

But  to  pass  on :  Gen.  Taylor's  account  of  his  march  from  Corpus  Christi  to  the  Rio  Grande  shows 
that  the  country  was  in  possession  of  Mexico.  At  the  Arroyo  Colorado  he  was  met  by  a  party  of 
irregular  cavalry,  (rancheros,)  who  informed  him  that  crossing  the  river  would  be  codsidered  an  act 
of  hostility  ;  and  that  they  had  express  orders  to  fire  upon  him,  if  he  attempted  it.  He,  however, 
crossed  the  river  without  molestation  and  proceeded  on  his  way.  When  within  ten  miles  of  Point 
Isabel  he  discovered  a  party  on  his  right  flank  bearing  a  white  flag.  It  turned  out  to  be  a  deputation 
from  the  northern  district  of  J  amaulipas,  with  a  formal  protest  against  his  occupation  of  the  country. 
When  he  approached  Point  Isabel  the  inhabitants  set  fire  to  their  buildings  and  fled  to  Mfitamoras 
for  protection.  When  he  reached  the  Rio  Grande  he  was  summoned  to  whj^raw  his  force  and  fall 
back  beyond  the  Nueces — that  is,  into  Texas.  It  was  Mexican,  and  not  Texan  territory  that  he 
was  desired  to  abandon.  • 

Again,  Mr.  President,  an  officer  in  General  Taylor's  army,  in  a  letter  to  the  New  York  Spirit  of 
the  Times,  dated  camp  opposite  Matamoras,  April  19th,  1846",  says: 

Our  situation  here  is  an  extraordinary  one.  Rigid  in  the.  enemy's  country,  actually  occupying  their  cot' 
ton  and  corn  fields,  the  people  of  the  soil  Itaving  thtir  homes,"  fyc. 

Another  officer,  in  a  letter  to  the  Albany  Atlas,  dated  at  the  camp  before  Matamoras,  says : 
"  West  of  the  Nuces  the  people  are  all  Spaniards.     The  country  is  uninhabited  excepting  the  valley 
of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  <hat  contains  a  pretty  den*e  population,  and  in  no  part  of  the  country  are  the  peo 
ple  more  loyal  to  the  Mexican  Government." 

The  testimony  of  these  officers,  sir,  needs  no  comment.  It  shows  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  coun 
try  was  in  the  quiet  and  peaceable  possession  of  Mexico,  when  General  Taylor  invaded  it.  Mr. 
President,  I  will  go  further  and  show  that  the  United  States  have  regarded  and  treated  the  left 
bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  as  Mexican  territory.  On  the  3d  of  March,  1845,  two  days  after  the  ap 
proval  of  the  resolution  of  annexation  by  the  President,  Congress  passed  an  act  declaring — 

"  That  any  imported  merchandize,  which  lias  been  entered  and  tho  duties  paid,  or  secured  according 
to  law,  for  drawbacks,  may  be  exported  to  Chihuahua  in  Mexico,  or  Santa  Fe  in  Mew  Mexico,"  &c. 

Here,  sir,  is  a  positive  law  of  Congress,  from  which  there  is  no  escaping,  touching  Santa  Fe  in 
New  Mexico — regulating  commerce  with  her  as  with  other  foreign  nations,  and  granting  the  prin 
ciple  of  drawback.  Santa  Fe,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande. 
But  this,  sir,  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  the  United  States  have  treated  the  left  bank  of  the 
Rio  Grande  as  Mexican  territory.  Our  military  chiefs,  under  instructions  from  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  have  established  a  territorial  government  over  the  Santa  Fe  country,  thereby  recog 
nizing  it  as  Mexican  territory.  No  Senator,  I  presume,  will  contend  that  a  territorial  government  can 
be  established  within  the  jurisdiction  of  one  of  the  sovereign  States  of  this  Union.  Now,  Mr.  Pre 
sident,  how  are  these  facts  met  and  answered  by  Senators  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber?  The 
honorable  Senator  from  Illinois,  (Mr.  DOUGLAS,)  made  an  able  speech  the  other  day  to  prove  the 
right  of  Texas  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  ;  but,  in  my  judgment,  he  failed  to  establish  the 
fact.  He  contended  that  Texas  never  rebelled  against  the  constituted  authorities  of  Mexico  ;  but 
that  a  few  military  leaders,  with  Santa  Anna  at  their  head,  conspired  and  rebelled  against  the  re 
public  of  Mexico — seized  the  reins  of  Government — abolished  the  federal  constitution  and  State 
Governments,  and  established  a  military  despotism  in  their  stead  ; — that  Santa  Anna  reduced  to  sub 
mission  all  that  portion  of  the  republic  of  Mexico  which  lies  to  the  south  and  west  of  the  Rio 
Grande  ;  that  the  people  on  this  side  of  the  Rio  Grande  took  up  arms  and  confined  the  power  of 
the  revolutionary  Government  to  the  right  bank  of  that  river. 

Now,  sir,  suppose  all  this  to  be  true.  How  does  it  prove  the  right  of  Texas  to  the  State  of  Ta- 
maulipas,  or  any  other  Mexican  State  on  this  side  of  the  Rio  Grande  1  If  the  revolution  was  con 
fined  to  the  right  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  the  Mexican  States  on  this  side  of  the  river  retained 
their  separate  existence  and  original  boundaries.  But,  Mr.  President,  Santa  Anna,  it  is  said,  while 
a  prisoner  of  war  in  Texas,  made  a  treaty  with  that  Government  establishing  the  Rio  Grande,  from 
its  mouth  to  its  source,  as  the  southwestern  boundary  of  Texas. 

Santa  Anna  made  no  treaty  with  Texas  while  a  prisoner  of  war,  or  at  any  other  time.  On  the 
12th  of  May,  1836,  while  a  prisoner  of  war  in  Texas,  he  entered  into  articles  of  agreement  with 
Texas,  by  which  he  bound  himself  to  use  his  influence  with  his  Government  to  procure  a  treaty 
acknowledging  the  independence  of  Texas  and  establishing  the  Rio  Grande  as  her  southwestern 
boundary.  His  Government,  however,  repudiated  the  agreement  and  refused  to  make  any  terms 


19 

whatever  with  Texas.  In  December,  after  this  agreement,  the  Texan  Congress  passed  an  act  de 
claring  the  Rio  Grande,  from  its  mouth  to  its  source,  to  be  her  western  boundary,  and  that,  it  is 
claimed,  gave  her  a  right  to  the  country.  This  act  of  Congress,  sir,  gave  Texas  no  right  whatever 
to  one  foot  of  territory  beyond  her  ancient  limits,  that  she  had  not  conquered  from  Mexico  and  sub 
jected  to  her  jurisdiction  and  laws. 

This  question  was  largely  discussed  in  this  chamber  when  the  treaty  of  annexation  was  before 
us  in  1844,  Judge  Woodbury,  then  a  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  and  now  one  of  the  Judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  his  speech  in  favor  of  the  ratification  of  the  treaty^ 
--id: 

'•  Texas,  by  a  mere  law,  could  acquire  no  title  but  what  she  conquered  from  Mexico,  and  actually  gov 
erned.  Hence,  though  her  law  includes  more  than  the  ancient  Texas,  she  could  hold  and  convey  only 
that,  or  at  the  uttermost,  only  what  she  exercised  clear  jurisdiction  over." 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Missouri,  (Mr.  BENTON,)  in  the  course  of  his  able  speech  against  the 
treaty,  introduced  the  following  resolution  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  incorporation  of  ihe  left  bank  of  the  Kiodel  Norte,  (Rio  Grande,)  into  the  Amer 
ican  Union,  by  virtue  of  a  treaty  with  Texas,  comprehending,  as  the  said  incorporation  would  do,  a  part- 
of  the  Mexican  departments  of  New  Mexico,  Chihuahua,  Coahuila,  and  Tamaulipas,  would  be  an  act  of" 
direct  aggression  on  Mexico  ;  for  all  the  consequences  of  which  the  United  States  would  be  responsible." 

The  Hon.  Silas  Wright,  then  a  member  of  the  Senate,  but  since  deceased,  in  a  speech  delivered ' 
at  Watertown,  New  York,  just  after  he  had  voted  against  the  treaty,  said : 

"  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  vote  against  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas.  I  believed . 
that  the  treaty,  from  the  boundaries  that  must  be  implied  from  it,  embraced  a  country  to  which  Texas  had 
no  claim,  over  which  she  had  never  asserted  jurisdiction,  and  which  she  had  no  right  to  cede." 

The  claim  of  Texas  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  derived  no  strength  whatever  from  her 
act  of  Congress.  If  she  had  no  title  before,  she  had  none  afterwards.  "  I  wash  my  hands,"  said 
Col.  BENTON, 

"  Of  all  the  attempts  to  dismember  the  Mexican  Republic,  by  severing  her  dominions  in  New  Mexico, 
Chihuahua,  Coahuila,  and  Tamaulipa*.  The  treaty,  in  all  that  relates  to  the  boundary  of  the  Rio  Grande, 
is  an  act  of  unparralleled  outrage  on  Mexico.  It  is  the  seizure  of  two  thousand  miles  of  her  territory 
without  a  word  of  explanation  with  her,  and  by  virtue  oi  a  treaty  with  Texas,  to  which  she  is  no  party." 

After  full  discussion,  the  treaty,  as  I  have  before  said,  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  35  nays,  to  16 
yeas. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  already  trespassed  too  long  upon  the  patience  of  the  Senate,  and  I  will 
bring  my  remarks  to  a  close.  The  career  of  conquest  upon  which  we  have  entered,  is  full  of  dan 
ger  and  peril  to  the  country.  It  may  bring  under  our  dominion  foreign  states  and  provinces,  but  it 
will  bring  with  them  an  ignorant,  degraded,  population,  wholly  unprepared  for  the  enjoyment  of  our 
free  and  liberal  institutions.  With  the  extension  of  our  territorial  limits,  will  come  an  increase  of 
armies  and  navies,  and  the  building  up  of  a  great  military  power,  never  contemplated  by  the  fram- 
ers  of  the  Constitution.  An  increase  of  Executive  patronage  will  follow,  and  an  ambitious  President, 
selected  from  the  successful  commanders  of  the  army,  may  trample  the  Constitution  under  foot,  and 
subject  the  people  to  the  despotism  of  military  rule.  If  they  appeal  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  for 
protection,  they  will  be  answered  in  the  language  of  Caesar  to  Metellus — "  that  arms  and  laws  never 
flourish  at  the  same  time."  Mr.  President,  I  call  on  the  student  of  history,  and  we  have  many  in 
this  chamber,  to  point  me  to  a  nation,  either  ancient  or  modern,  that  has  by  its  wars  of  conquest, 
acquired  any  enduring  glory,  or  conferred  any  lasting  benefits  upon  its  people. 

Did  Greece  gain  any  enduring  fame  by  the  wars  of  conquest  in  which  she  engaged  1  No,  sir, 
Grecian  liberties  perished  at  Chreronea,  more  than  two  thousand  years  ago.  Rome  carried  her  vic 
torious  arms  into  neighboring  provinces,  and  subjected  them  to  her  dominion,  but  she  could  not  save 
her  republic.  Roman  liberties  were  cloven  down  by  Roman  armies  on  the  battlefield  of  Phillppi, 
more  than  thirty  years  before  the  Christian  era. 

What  has  France  gained  by  the  wars  of  invasion  and  conquest  in  which  she  has  been  engaged  1 
She  dethroned  kings  and  established  her  power  in  the  countries  around  her.  She  drenched  the  con 
tinent  of  Europe  in  blood,  in  her  wars  of  conquest.  And  what  is  her  condition  now  ?  She  is  con 
fined  to  her  ancient  limits,  and  quietly  reposing  under  the  reign  of  her  Bourbon  sovereign.  What 
has  Russia  gained  by  her  conquest  of  the  Caucassian  country?  Nothing  sir ;  she  received  the  sub 
mission  of  the  people  in  1796,  and  from  that  day  to  this,  she  has  been  compelled  to  keep  in  the  field 
an  army  of  twenty  thousand  men  to  defend  and  protect  it.  Mr.  President,  aggressive  war  is  no 
part  of  our  mission — we  can  gain  no  enduring  glory  by  the  conquest  of  foreign  states  and  provin 
ces.  The  victories  that  redound  most  to  our  honor  are  achieved  in  the  workshops  and  counting 
houses  of  the  country.  We  have  a  broad  domain  with  every  variety  of  soil  and  climate,  and  by- 
industry,  enterprise,  and  energy,  we  can  command  all  the  comforts  and  luxuries  of  life,  and  secure 
for  our  country  the  admiration  of  the  world. 


12   -197 


